Cochrane: Deutsch Unraveled — COMPLEXITY COVERS FRAUD Posted on May 17, 2011 by Neil Garfield Posted on May 17, 2011 by MARIO KENNY| Leave a comment

Rate This

Via Neil Garfield of www.livinglies.wordpress.com

Now they are trying it again, with the help of the NY FED. The characterization of the loan models as ―originate and distribute‖ gives the impression that the loans were underwritten first and then distributed pursuant to a securitization plan. They are again retreating to complexity to cover up a simple theft. The truth is that the model was not ―originate and distribute‖ it was ―sell and originate‖ without any distribution (no transfers made) except for the distribution of cash without regard to the documents or their actions. — Neil Garfield

Instead, borrowers are being required to rely on sources like this blog and others as well as obtaining as much proof of the credibility of their defenses BEFORE the would-be forecloser even pleads or proves a case. And that is why the services offered on this blog are necessary — not because the law requires it but because the law is being applied contrary to the requirements of due process and basic elements of jurisdiction and standing. — Neil Garfield

EDITOR‘S COMMENT: This information is valuable as it lays out much of the relationships, duties and obligations of Deutsch in the securitization illusion. The assumption in most quarters has been that this kind of complexity was necessary because the derivatives that were constructed were highly sophisticated innovative instruments that called for a complex rendering of the movement of money and the participation of parties.

When I was on Wall Street we were laying the groundwork for these instruments and I even created them in the marketplace. This sort of complexity means only one thing: they are hiding something. The advantage in using a structure so complex is that the Buyer of any derivative, CDO, synthetic CDO, credit default swap, insurance contract or guarantee will have no idea what to make of the substance and procedure that is created in these relationships. Alan Greenspan admitted in A TV interview that with 100 of the smartest PhD‘s on his staff they couldn‘t understand these instruments either.

In complexity the advantage is with the Seller. By creating asymmetric access to information and intent, the Buyer is forced to rely on the Seller‘s representations and reputation as to what the documents mean, who the players are and what they are doing. By buying off the rating agencies and the appraisers of real property, the securitizers on Wall Street created the perfect crime. They created the appearance of safety while they were planting demolition bombs under the structure, selling the deal to investors and borrowers with full knowledge that the whole thing would collapse because that was the intent.

When you don‘t need to guess what will happen next, the selling process changes. You can sell the same thing over and over again, and bet against its success without ever having to account for the

money that was advanced by investors or the homes that were put up as collateral by homeowners — all of whom were relying upon the expertise and sophistication of financial institutions that were over 100 years old, combined with quasi public rating agencies and appraisals that were confirmed by ―lenders‖ who turned out to be originators.

By retaining the power to unilaterally declare a pool in default or a loan in default or a trust to have lost value or viability, Wall Street kept its hand on the gun and pulled the trigger as often as it wanted. With the regulators and legislators completely bewildered and compromised by lobbying dollars and job prospects, and the consumers (investor-lenders and homeowner-borrowers) equally perplexed but hearing what they needed to go ahead, Wall Street was able to create the appearance of ―free choice‖ when in fact they were simply stealing through the use of fraud and deception.

Now they are trying it again, with the help of the NY FED. The characterization of the loan models as ―originate and distribute‖ gives the impression that the loans were underwritten first and then distributed pursuant to a securitization plan. They are again retreating to complexity to cover up a simple theft. The truth is that the model was not ―originate and distribute‖ it was ―sell and originate‖ without any distribution (no transfers made) except for the distribution of cash without regard to the documents or their actions.

The tragedy of the American home crisis is that the burden of proof was successfully shifted to the people with the least information and the leasts access to information — the ac tual homeonwers who were bewildered by an array of more than 400 loan products and the invetors who were confronted by a bewildering array of documents, relationships and contracts that inured not to their benefit but to the benefit of those who sold them the bogus mortgage bonds that wer empty when they were sold, are empty now, and will always be empty.

In court, the party seeking affirmative relief is the party looking to take the home away from the owners. In all cases except foreclosure the party seeking affirmative relief is held to the standard burden of proof — i.e., they must plead and prove their case not with representations an affidavits from their attorneys but with real witnesses and real documents.

Instead, borrowers are being required to rely on sources like this blog and others as well as obtaining as much proof of the credibility of their defenses BEFORE the would-be forecloser even pleads or proves a case. And that is why the services offered on this blog are necessary — not because the law requires it but because the law is being applied contrary to the requirements of due process and basic elements of jurisdiction and standing.

Inside United States what‘s Deutsche Bank got to do … got to do with it? Terminator! As Intermediary Funder ‗DB Structured Products, Inc.‘ and a registered member of MERS – DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc. has everything to do with it! In fact, they are the actual unrelated third party in agreements with coconspirators who harmed economy, third element of our national security, and our great nation. Want to know how the ‗Trust Fund‘ CAP Swap Agreement and relates with respect to any Loan to be purchased pursuant to a Purchase Obligation, any Loan to be purchased pursuant to Section 3.31, or any Loan to be purchased or repurchased relating to an REO Property, and as confirmed by an Officers‘ Certificate from the Master Servicer to the Trustee and the Securities Administrator ‗Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp‘ Active as of 5/16/2011. No stock information for ‗profits‘ are invested and held by holding company protecting owners. OWNERS holdings c/o Seth H Waugh, 60 Wall St, New York, NY 10005 a New York State business entity, Status is Active, County New York, Jurisdiction Delaware. Established 7/28/1993 as ‗Deutsche Bank North America Holding Corp‘ renamed 7/26/1998 DB Structured Products Inc. registered in California doing business inter-states under UCC Codes, as coconspirators during Origination the ‗intermediary‘ ‗funder‘ acting as a non-related third party, who on 6/8/2006 funded a monetary transaction ordered by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a div of Wells Fargo Bank NA as SERVICER related to DB and Lehman and Wells Fargo and Norwest Corp and

Goldman Sachs and UBS and BOA. On 6/5/2006 as Originator, and on 6/7/2006 as Servicer, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a div of Wells Fargo Bank NA c/o Wells Fargo Funding LLC and DB Structured Products Inc. all transactions currency carried c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA. Actual ―Cashier‘s Check Statement‖ reveals ‗WFHM‘ ordered funding on 6/5/2006 closings taking place between originator‘s agents, brokers, dealers, distributors and non-related third parties. Consumer unaware their ‗mortgage loan‘ was committed and sold already in secret creating a predatory consumer mortgage that harmed the Cochrane family and the great State of New Jersey, and the economy, third element of our national security. As a matter of fact, follow this model and you can figure out how the economy was harmed. The ‗mortgage loan‘ approved by the underwriters was executed prior to consumer even reviewing the transactions (HUD, TILA, mortgage loan, promissory notes) and almost a week prior to the consumer‘s rescind period resulting in a defect at time of sale recognized to be a defect in the financial product sold that harmed consumer and was reported to Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, Office of Comptroller of Currency, US Attorney General Paul Fishman, State Attorney General A. Milgram, Financial Crimes Unit, DOBI, NJ DOBI, Congressman Scott Garrett, Senator Dodd, Governor Chris Christie, former Governor Corzine, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, Qualified Written RESPA Request disclosing alleged origination and servicing acts which harmed economy, directly to Wells Fargo & Co, c/o John Stumpf, Wells Fargo Bank NA, 420 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94163 – 415-396-5581 , Fax 415-396-2987. Appears Executive Specialist Bonnie Schooler‘s disclosure to Mary Cochrane directly on phone that Mary was never to call Bonnie ever again and Bonnie exclaimed ‗DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TROUBLE YOU HAVE CAUSED? Yep and I know how much more I‘m causing by revealing the actual facts of harm and injury and Bonnie Schooler‘s compliance and collusion and collaboration in hiding the origination frauds reported to the OCC who appear to be in cahoots with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ‗their client‘ and refuse to record consumer complaints from me period! Since Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen ignores me, and Congressman Scott Garrett ignores me and it appears that every government agency does not want the facts in the public domain, as a Patriot, I reveal how the economy has been harmed and have documented in writing since December 2008 and verbally reported to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage since May 2008. The funding from Deutsche Bank Trust America‘s closed with who? Checking Account DBT Co LTD in NJ c/o Structured Asset Securities Corp. The intent of the transactions recorded by DB STRUCTURED Products Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Deutsche Bank Insurance Company provides valuable information to all investigating not including the ‗intermediary‘ funder as ‗Plaintiff‘ or ‗Defendant‘ MERS as an electronic registry was intended to track the financial transactions other than ‗Retail‘ and the shareowners and shareholders are coconspirators. The transactions are for the beneficiary of the RETAIL transactions whose name is placed on the actual ‗mortgage‘ and the agencies and agents did not record the securitized documents in accordance with statutes of your state so find out who they were not properly recorded. The literal ‗mortgage‘ and ‗promissory note‘ Wells Fargo, JPM, BOA, LBHI, DB, UBS NATIONSBANK, FOOTHILL, Norwest Asset Securities Corp and Structured Asset Securities Corp handled. Detusche Bank Trust Americas will be related to: DB Structured Products, Inc. a New York State Business Entity. See Lines of Business: https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mbrsearch/mbrsearch.htm On the New York State Business Entity Search type: DB Structured and view record: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/bus_entity_search.html Securitization: Margolies Exits Deutsche Bank, November 16th, 2010 Joy Margolies, former managing director in the residential mortgage finance unit at Deutsche Bank, has left after nearly … is this the CEO of DB Structured Products Inc listed on New York State Business Entity records which are still active. The CEO, Joy Margolies, 60 M Wall Street, NY 10005; Principal Exec Office: Sonja K. Olsen, Deutsche Bank, c/o 60 Wall St N4006, N NY, Registered Agent: CT Corp 111 Eight Ave NY NY 10011.

1/11/2002 today 5/16/2011 DB Structured Products, Inc. renamed 1/10/2002 – 1/7/1994 – 12002 Deutsche Bank Sharps Pixley Inc. Renamed 1/6/1994 – 4/30/1970 established as Sharps Pixley Inc. is how you read the business certificate. Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust/Series 2006-AR4 (8K0 10/13/06) for example, Joy is Signatory and Mckee Nelson Filing Agent as related to Lehman Brothers. DB Structured Products, Inc. (SPONSOR). Registrant and Depositor: Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Date of Earliest Event 10/13/2006. File Commission Number 333-131600-06. IRS# 35-2184183, 60 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. Registrant entered into a PSA on 9/1/2006 as Depositor with HSBC Bank USA, National Association as TRUSTEE and Wells Fargo Bank NA as Master Servicer who is also the Securities Administrator providing issuance of the issuance of Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR4, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR4. The PSA Exhibit 4.1 http://www.secinfo.com/d13f21.v1B5.d.htm 9/1/2006 Depositor ‗at closing date‘ is owner of the loans and owner of other property being conveyed by it to Trustee for inclusion in Trust Fund. New York State Business Entity: Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. 6/3/2003 Jurisdiction DE, Inactive: Dissolution by Proclamation /Annulment of Authority 10/27/2010. Joy Margolies, 60 Wall St, New York, NY 10005. Principal Executive Office: Deutsche Alt-A Securities Inc. 60 Wall St, NYC 60-4006, NY NY 10005. Trust Fund segregated pool of assets comprised of loans and subsequent loans and certain other assets. On Closing Date, Depositor will acquire Certificates from TRUST FUND as consideration for its transfer to TRUST FUND of the Loans and certain other assets and WILL BE THE OWNER OF THE CERTIFICATES. The delivery by the Depositor, Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Cap Agreement (SWAP) March 2011 will be related to Mr. Soliman‘s clues regarding IAS 39, leasing and more. Here is great link ‗Implementation Guidance‘ IAS39 July 2001 ‗Derecognize‘ If transferor has retained control, the financial asset is not derecognized. Since Deutsche Alta Securities Inc is in agreement, and are in control to begin on March 2011…. One can assume IAS 39.37 applies. Why did Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital, LLC, 40 Wall St, NY established 11/19/1996 surrender Authority 7/28/2009? 60 Wall Street, NYC 60-4006, New York, NY 10005. Registered Agent Revoked? And Deutsche Bank Capital Corporation inactive as of 9/30/1993 DOS Process Agent c/o American UBS Corporation, 40 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. 1,000,000 shares established 5/20/1940 – Union American Corp. 4/22/1970 renamed Amrican UBS Corp; 12/29/1971 renamed UBS-DB Corp, renamed 3/31/1978 Atlantic Capital Corp, renamed 12/31/1984-Deutscfhe Bank Capital Corp until 9/30/1993 merged out of existence in New York. Actual Name 11/19/1996 – Transatlantic Capital Company, LLC through 11/4/19989 when renamed to Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital LLC renamed 11/19/2005 to Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital LLC. (1/17/1989-5/2/1990) Delaware Corp established and merged out of existence to handle mergers? Deutsche Bank Capital Management (USA) Corp. As reasonable people, I am able to understand employment descriptions which prove useful. For example, look at the duties of a Joy Margolies whose LinkedIn public profile on 5/16/2011 reveals employment duties thru 1992. Is Joy E and this Joy the same person as listed from multi sources? I‘ve copied at the bottom for the information provides an excellent resource of what ‗DB Structured Products Inc.‘ a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) managed and how relates to the MERS entity as an intermediary funder of my mortgage loan on 6/5/2006 as ordered by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employees. The Principal Executive Office refers to a Sonja K Olsen whose business profile comes up in Wiki working for: Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency Incorporated, located at 60 Wall St New York, NY 10005. ―The officers include Sonja, Sonja K Olsen, Terry W Nall. Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency Incorporated was incorporated on Monday, January 15, 1996 in the State of FL and is currently active. Registered Agent c/o CT Corp Sys, 111 Eighth Ave, NY NY 10011‖

A New York State Business Entity, Jursidiction MD County in NY Dutchess, Active 5/1y6/2011, formerly known as ‗Alex. Brown Insurance Agency Inc. 2/5/1987 established name changed 11/3/2004. Chairman CEO ‗Terry W Nall‘ c/o 3414 Peachtree Rd NE, Atlanta GA 30326. Principal Executive Office: Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency Inc., One South St, Baltimore MD 21202.

Disclosure: In no way does this discussion intend harm to employees of the coconspirators. Rather, we need to understand that good people employeed by the coconspirators were harmed also. How many brokers, dealers, distributors, agents of the SERVICER and ORIGINATORS are personally harmed forced into foreclosures and bankruptcies. The coconspirators did not discriminate whose properties would be taken. Back to basic discussion how Deutsche Bank as a coconspirator harms us as ‗intermediary funder‘ during Origination through the ‗Master Servicer‘ Wells Fargo Bank NA as ‗Seller‘ of Discounted Mortgage Loans (orchestrates over 90 days) and in one transaction sells to Master Servicer ‗Aurora Loan Servicing‘ as Purchaser of mortgage loans through Structured Asset Securities Corp. organized as a pass-through agency (joint venture) SPV‘s leasing agreements…. What is a conspiracy: ‗Con‘priacy‘ ‗Hand in Glove‘ Cahoots ―in League or in Partnership share equally ‗joint venture‘ origin of ‗in cahoots‘ kajuit (Dutch) and kajut (German) ….. a joint conspirator… in agreements band ‗themselves‘ together to perform ‗alleged‘ illegal, wrongful, or subversive acts (both spoken and unspoken). Many employees are doing their jobs in good faith. Many are complicit and a JURY will have to decide based upon intent of substantive omissions of material facts. Do the ‗Executive Specialists‘ of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ‗Institutional‘ who orchestrate the reconstitution for their client ‗Lehman Brothers‘ and ‗Deutsche Securities‘ act in collusion and collaboration to hide the deceptive acts during origination? Do these individual employees act on behalf of their employer, co-presidents of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage divisions of ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ of parent Wells Fargo & Co. beneficiary of the transactions of MASTER SERVICER Structured Asset Securities Corp and Norwest Asset Securities Corp c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA SERVICER. Really important to comprehend and understand that many of the employees were brokers, dealers, agents, distributors of the coconspirators who benefitted and acted with intent to hide the documents that would reveal facts of harm and injury to consumer and those people can be named in the lawsuits to be brought against those who have harmed the economy and your families. Many employees of the SERVICER‘s call centers today are cooperating with consumers and providing data facts and helping to reveal harms to consumers. Wonder how many are really undercover? After all how are we going to penetrate cut the head of the snake and end this nightmare? The Master Servicers‘ reconstitution documents apply during ‗commercial clients‘ foreclosures and bankruptcies proceeded by the very documents governance of the originations for the ORIGINATOR‘s RETAIL transactions. Nowhere do consumers have copies of Agreement‘s between the ‗Agent‘, ‗Broker‘, ‗Dealer‘, ‗Distributors‘ of the retail and wholesale transactions related to the ‗Servicer‘ who is attempting to taking possession of property in a larcenous manner. Upon foreclosure, the agreements invoked by the members of the reconstitution, do implement, with intent, the takings of property in larcenous manner and with intent created during the 90 day origination period the takings by deception. One could wonder why no one was doing anything about these acts if they had not been in writing. And they are in writing filed in the public domain. , and making possible third party to take possession of consumer‘s real and personal property in larcenous manner. Reconstitution clearly intent contains the instructions created during the 90 days the ‗mortgage loans‘ origination not in the pooling and servicing agreement. A 90 day pre-period loans originated were committed. Literally, the public instructions filed in the ‗pooling and servicing agreements‘ and unassociated documents, miscellaneous exhibits and reconstituted servicing agreements for TRUST FUNDS filed on the SEC for use of the employees of the coconspirators.

The instructions define roles and responsibilities and in the event of foreclosures or bankruptcies. Written ‗intent‘ of the coconspirators on the RETAIL SIDE of ‗mortgage loan‘ transaction and are engaged in literal takings of real and personal property that do not belong to the coconspirators. The coconspirators‘ servicers are complicity for they don‘t‘ have a legal right to the takings and don‘t have first-hand knowledge of the document and have falsified the documents filed with the County Clerks/Recorder, and COURTs! The FORECLOSUEGATE attorneys‘ agreements are representing non-related third parties and the manufacturers who designed the financial products and financial services to be placed into the public domain and sold to consumers with intent of not following the laws of the United States of America intended to stand before the court and lie, cheat and steal. The RETAIL TRANSACTIONS of the coconspirator‘s and their Master Servicers (Structured Asset Securities Corp) and (Norwest Asset Securities Corp) promises to each other in writing all transactions (movement of currency) in sale of discounted loans and purchase of discounted loans are WITHOUT RECOURSE. Check cashed and cancelled cannot be returned to sender. So as not to interfere in each other‘s business and to hide documents that otherwise clearly would reveal the true owners of the unlawful acts, the private brand label ‗Wells Fargo‘ or a ‗national banking association‘ are affixed to all of the related transactions on the SERVICING SIDE. Complicity by the Secretary Counsel of the conglomerates did create the agreements and with understanding did sign agreements the CEO‘s and CFO‘s for all documents are reviewed and all are in agreements as beneficiary and whether directly or indirectly the beneficiary and leases between each other‘s senior executive management and their employees, agents, dealers, brokers, distributors did employ workers‖ for pieces of gold and silver and promises of stocks and bonus, stipends and rewards from the lowliest of low REO BROKERS who many coconspirators have their own divisions such as Wells Fargo‘s ‗Home Mortgage‘ division ‗Premier Asset Services‘ (PAS) by invitation only of a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employee will train their own REO BROKERS who pay fees to be ‗the one‘ to get the property and purchase the bad debt and in collusion and are complicit hide the broken chain of title securing services of complicity title and settlement agencies to consummate the deals and movement of ownership and resale‘s of bank owned properties. All paid pieces of silver and gold and promises of stock rewards, bonus, stipends, and commissions do and did exchange services and their silence did cooperate to get paid and harm the economy of the United States of America. Now we are only speaking of the RETAIL TRANSACTIONS of the coconspirators DB, WFC, JPM, LBHI, UBS, BOA … Master Servicer as Facilitator (makes easier) acts of the coconspirators‘ roles defined literally by agreements do perform together ‗alleged‘ illegal, wrongful, or subversive acts of the Underwriters. The Master Servicer is not the ‗mastermind‘ but a pass through agency created by the coconspirators ‗Structured Asset Securities Corp‘ and ‗Norwest Asset Securities Corp‘ for example the ‗Registrant‘. Important Notice: The ‗Issuing Entity‘ on the SEC are related to the ‗ISSUER‘ as ‗Owner‘ filed by the Filer or Reporting Owner and is not related to the retail transactions of the ‗mortgage loan‘ as not the ‗loan trust.‘ In the beginning, Coconspirators (Parents) operating as Financial Holding Companies (Domestic (USA) or International) are dependent upon their own Underwriters. Underwriter: a person or firm engaged in the insurance business, who assesses the risk of enrolling an applicant for coverage or a policy, and who guarantees the purchase of a full issue of stocks or bonds and the person and enterprise that underwrites the insurance policies and the employees and agents of the insurance company who assesses the risks and determines the premiums payable to themselves; e.g. payment of commission of empty pooling and servicing agreement estimated value and ‗Master Servicer‘ paid fee for they are the ‗handler.‘ Coconspirator (a member and one that engages in a conspiracy); co-conspirator (a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose); underwriter, master servicer, ….Question: Can the ‗Issuing Entity‘ be a fictitious name? The name of a file folder and scam is the Master Servicer – Structured Asset Securities Corp (SASCO) and Norwest Asset Securities Corp (NASCOR).??? See what became the PSA‘s the Reconstituted Servicing Agreements of the Master Servicers Structured Asset Securities Corp (SASCOR) and Norwest Asset Securities Corp (NASCOR). For its only through an agreement or reconstitution ….

Reconstituted Servicing Agreement as related to topic ‗ Deutsche Bank/DE adding Lynn S‘s son‘s name to Lis Pendens and specifically what does the Issuing Entity, Loan Trust got to do with Deutsche Bank and CONSPIRACY (two or more entities …in agreement…..) See, read, and digest the actual meanings of the words using the Free Financial Legal Dictionary: 17 C.F.R. § 229.1107 (Item 1107) Issuing entities. Title 17 – Commodity and Securities Exchanges: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title17/17-2.0.1.1.11.12.30.8.html See: ―(l) If applicable law prohibits the issuing entity from holding the pool assets directly (for example, an ―eligible lender‖ trustee must hold student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)), describe the arrangements instituted to hold the pool assets on behalf of the issuing entity. Include disclosure regarding the arrangements taken, as applicable, regarding the items in paragraph (k) of this section with respect to any such additional entity that holds such assets on behalf of the issuing entity.‖

ANYWAY WHAT‘S THE ‗ISSUING ENTITY‘ GOT TO DO GOT TO DO WITH IT? Since Sarbanes Oxley they ‗bastardized‘ the intent of the SEC Regulations that the Issuing Entity would have accountability. NOT when each ‗Issuing Entity‘ researched is nothing more than a file folder name. Is there an SEC Regulation which allows use of fictitious names? For indeed each ‗Issuer‘ is an entity such as Structured Asset Securities Corp or Norwest Asset Securities Corp whose ‗Owner‘ filed documents under the fictitious entity forcing reasonable people to wear ‗horse blinders‘ and focus on agreements that have nothing to do with the ‗loan trusts‘ and everything to do with the intent of takings of properties and only come alive during a foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. Otherwise, these documents as filed serve no purpose and are the SPV‘s and literal vehicle of the con-game. ‗Issuing Entity‘ file folder that contains documents, agreements, transactions, financial schedules, related to movement of money of entity ‗Structured Asset Securities Corp‘ as Registrant over SEC assigned the ‗role‘ and ‗responsibility‘ as DEPOSITOR for (1) big transaction (representing all of the Originators related special-purpose vehicles (subsidiaries‘ affiliates) dealers, brokers, agents, distributors on ‗retail side‘ as SERVICERS. Monies moved from Master Servicer on retail side as SERVICER on retail side the parties who collect money for ‗loan numbers‗. The ‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘ on the Retail side is also known as the Pooling & Servicing Agreement used only in the event of foreclosure, and provides instructions: who, what, when, where, why, how the SERVICER will take property without lawfully recorded Assignment. ―The Assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt is a nullity in law‖ ―A lien is not assignable unless by express language of the statue‖ ―What is the statute in your state where the property is located? In California for example, the note and mortgage are inseparable. What about your state? Is the note essential, and the mortgage an incidental? For if so read further to see if the Assignment of the note carries the mortgage. Therefore, the Assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity? See Carpenter V. Longan, 83 U.S> 271 (1872) US Supreme Court https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia Secure from LivingLies their new forensic audit which will reveal the loans are not in default! The SERVICERS are in agreements to pay the monthly payments or forfeit the $1 Billion dollar portfolio they get ½ percent on the principal balance of. How much is ½ percent of a $Billion dollars annually for 30 years? Plus the chunk of change monthly x 360 months for collecting payments. SERVICERS forced by agreement want to collect the ‗mortgage loan‘ monthly payments and move to themselves in many related entities names a series of transactions through their own treasures and gave themselves the short and long stick to profit during default events to themselves so move assets around, move currency for each time you touch the entity you make money. The Plaintiff‘s attorney who files the documents and stays in uncontested foreclosures is under agreement and is beneficiary of transactions of SERVICERS. Anyone discuss yet why all foreclosures and bankruptcies moved to a trustee who claims to be a national banking association? And who claims to hold a ‗perfected lien‘ and are the owner of the asset as the ‗current‘ beneficiary of promissory note‘ entitled to ‗Deed of Trust‘ a superior agreement held in the name of the property owner.

When the institutions fail the FDIC allows them to repurchase their own bad debt! And FDIC pays $.65 on the dollar! WOW! How? Not complicated all by agreement. With Intent the related Servicer (a fictitious name and/or affiliate of itself)appears in court of equity and claims to be the owner abusing the COURTS (spitting upon the Federal Republic) and the robo-law firms are with intent with knowledge and coconspirators – two or more persons in agreements in a conspiracy. The ‗trustee‘ as a national banking association claims they have a right (and use the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to prevent disclosures otherwise Structured Asset Securities Corp and Norwest Asset Securities Corp would be subjected. Based upon the ‗Issuing Entity‘ The ‗written definition and role and related responsibilities‘ are intent. Originator‘s subsidiaries, affiliates, third-party agents, dealers, brokers, distrutors of the (Master Servicer as Purchaser of Loans) majority sold back the rights to SERVICE the loans. The ‗intent‘ of the events that may happen as related to a foreclosure or bankruptcy are covered and outlined in the reconstitution of the bad debt of the Servicer (who again as themselves represented in the beginning at the RETAIL side of the transactions as related to creating a ‗mortgage loan‘ claim they are with the right to collect money and takings of property.

Why the TRUST FUND of 88 individual loan trusts, in the event any of the referenced ‗mortgage loans‘ how many loans? Are covered by (1) ‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘ recognized to be the Pooling & Servicing Agreement by ‗Loan Forensic Auditors‘ and lists SASCO 2006-WF3 ‗Trust Fund‘ of 88 Loan Trusts PSA RECONSTITUTED SERVICING AGREEMENT‘s instructions. Unrelated third parties not included (mentioned) during Origination keep secret from consumers are Deutsche Bank Trust of Americas whose funding deposited to ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ as LENDER merely a technicality to record a ‗mortgage loan‘ in the name of Wells Fargo Bank NA who will present an Assignment in the event of a default event or resale. Why do they leave out the intermediary funder? Part of the RETAIL TRANSACTIONS that the ‗Lenders‘ don‘t record inside of the MERS database that the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS‘ beneficiaries of all these transactions along with the United States Government claim MERS is the new ‗Vogue‘ to record electronic transactions and if you let them will like Cede & Co. c/o SOME foreign owner have control of all the real estate of the USA! Without accountability and responsibility to the laws of the United States of America and intent ? to make DEED OF TRUST an inferior document. Why does DB STRUCTURED Products, Inc. left out of the ‗named‘ parties? Why does the UNDERWRITER not need to be listed as one of the SERVICER‘s of the RETAIL TRANSACTIOSN? Or are they as DB Structured Asset Products MERS MEMBER ID: 1002829 who is a ‗Servicer‘, ‗Sub-servicer‘, ‗Interim Funder‘, ‗Investor‘, ‗Document Custodian‘ but is not an eRegistry or eDelivery Participant (Lines of Business) Member Org ID: 1002829, DB Structured Products, Inc, 60 Wall Street, NYNY 10005 (212) 250-9340 & fax 212-797-5160 c/o MERS Department. Wells Fargo Funding – MERS Org ID: 1010064 – Lines of Business ―INVESTOR‖ ―Third Party‖ c/o Wells Fargo Funding Inc., Sixth & Marquette, Minneapolis MN 55479 who are eRegistry and eDelivery Participants (Correspondent Lenders) under Agreement with Intermediary Funder DB Structured Products, Inc. Wells Fargo Foothill LLC c/o Lender Finance Division, 14241 Dallas Parkway Suite 1300, Dallas TX 75254 (Fax) 972-387-4054 – MERS Org ID: 1006610 Lines of Business: ‗Interim Funder‘ is not an eRegistry Participant nor eDelivery participant. Business Entity Search New York State: Active as of 5/16/2011: Wells Fargo Foothill Inc. Foothill Capital Corporation 8/17/1982 – 7/11/2003 renamed to Wells Fargo Foothill Inc. – Principal Executive Office, Peter Schwab c/o Wells Fargo Foot Hill Group, Inc., 24450 Colorado Ave, Suite 3000 W. Santa Monica CA 90404, Jurisdiction CA, Active in New York State under Uniform Commercial Codes as an active foreign business corporation. (Up to no good on 8/4/2009 registered Foothill Securities, Inc. c/o National Registered Agents, Inc. 875 Ave of the Americas, Suite 501, NY NY 10001 Of interest to research: Foothills Title Agency Inc. 3/21/1988 – County Warren NY established

3/21/1988 shares of stock 200, Dissolution by Proclamation/Annulment 1993). For those who are not familiar with who Foothill Group know they are related to UBS, Norwest Corp, BOA, Nations . ‗Deutsche Bank Trust Americas‘ or leaving out the actual bank in NJ ‗DBT Co. Ltd‘ who deposited the funding into the Corporate Treasury Securities ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ in the name of the Settlement Agent (as an individual) who is an affiliate of the Title & Settlement Agency (can be any name). At that time all of those transactions are RETAIL with SERVICER and have nothing to do with the LENDER, and nothing to do with Deutsche Bank the MERS ‗intermediary funding‘ as DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS for example.

Deutsche Bank regional corporate trust offices established inside US June 2002 in Charlotte NC, New York, Chicago, Olive Branch Mississippi (funny ‗olive branch‘), Santa Anna, San Francisco CA opened 1/20/2004 regional western states headquarters handling Municipal Trustee Services (purchase of municipalities)… Deutsche Bank Trust & Securities Services = ‗Global Provider of trust & securities administration services‘ Deutsche Bank/AG global leader corporate banking and securities transactions: banking, asset management, private wealth management, significant private and business banking franchise in Germany and other selected countries in Continental Europe. In over 23 Securities Markets, as well as trustee, agency, registrar, depository, SPV management, relates services for wide range of financings. Products serviced include bonds, auction rate securities, medium term note and commercial paper programs, asset backed and mortgage backed securities, CDOs, SIVs, project financings, escrows, syndicated loans, American Depositary Receipts and German equities

Definitions Consumers must chant every day to not be confused: ‗Issuing Entity‘ ‗Loan Trust‘ ‗Assignment‘ ‗Lis Pendens‘ ‗Current beneficiary of a promissory note by way of Assignment‘ ‗Perfected lien‘ ‗Chain of Title‘ ‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘

Chairman Bair explained to the House Services Committee:

Securitization takes the role of the lender and breaks it into separate components. Unlike the more traditional relationship between a borrower and a lender, securitization involves the sale of the loan by the lender to a new owner–the issuer–who then sells securities to investors. The investors are buying ―bonds‖ that entitle them to a share of the cash paid by the borrowers on their mortgages. Once the lender has sold the mortgage to the issuer, the lender no longer has the power to restructure the loan or make other accommodations for its borrower. That becomes the responsibility of a servicer, who collects the mortgage payments, distributes them to the issuer for payment to investors, and, if the borrower cannot pay, takes action to recover cash for the investors.

And she listed some of the roles in this modern mortgage transaction: And she listed some of the roles in this modern mortgage transaction:

o Issuer – A bankruptcy-remote special purpose entity (SPE) formed to facilitate a securitization and to issue securities to investors. o Lender – An entity that underwrites and funds loans that are eventually sold to the SPE for inclusion in the securitization. Lenders are compensated by cash for the purchase of the loan and by fees. In some cases, the lender might contract with mortgage brokers. Lenders can be banks or non-banks.

o Mortgage Broker – Acts as a facilitator between a borrower and the lender. The mortgage broker receives fee income upon the loan‘s closing. o Servicer – The entity responsible for collecting loan payments from borrowers and for remitting these payments to the issuer for distribution to the investors. The servicer is typically compensated with fees based on the volume of loans serviced. The servicer is generally obligated to maximize the payments from the borrowers to the issuer, and is responsible for handling delinquent loans and foreclosures. o Investors – The purchasers of the various securities issued by a securitization. Investors provide funding for the loans and assume varying degrees of credit risk, based on the terms of the securities they purchase… o Trustee – A third party appointed to represent the investors‘ interests in a securitization. The trustee ensures that the securitization operates as set forth in the securitization documents, which may include determinations about the servicer‘s compliance with established servicing criteria. ―Bankruptcy-remote‖. What a great adjective Margolies Exits Deutsche Bank, November 16th, 2010 LINKEDIN PROFILE of Joyce Margolies as of 5/16/2011 As related to ‗DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc.‘ and Deutsche Bank Trust Americas c/o DBT Co Ltd. New Jersey intermediary funding (MERS transactions) for retail mortgage loans with ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ ordered by WFHM c/o Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp on Federal Reserve System renamed from Norwest Asset Securities Corp

Joy Margolies: Structured Finance Professional ‗Investment Banking‘ Managing Director – Mortgage Finance at Deutsche Bank, Vice President at ING and Vice President at Credit Suisse First Boston, Vice President at Lehman Brothers, Audit Manager, Financial Services a div Arthur Andersen. Managing Director – Mortgage Finance Deutsche Bank Public Company; DB; Investment Banking industry May 2001 – November 2010 (9 years 7 months) - Managed a large staff responsible for contract finance, structured transactions, collateral analysis, due diligence, default management, breach management and investigation/litigation defense. - Executed all residential whole loan purchase, sale, servicing, joint ventures, securitizations and all RMBS structured transactions including interaction with counsel, rating agencies, accountants, investors, etc. - Led a deal team including senior M&A, accounting policy and legal officers, in executing the purchase of two mortgage companies by Deutsche Bank. - Provided default management on large whole loan position to maximize recovery via whole loan sale, liquidation, short sale or modifications. - Managed rep and warrant breach work from both buyer and seller perspective - Performed an assessment of Western European mortgage platforms which resulted in stabilization of servicing and renegotiation of prohibitive vendor contract resulting in multimillion dollar cost savings. Executed first UK whole loan sale of non performing portfolio. - Originated, executed and structured asset-backed commercial paper facilities and repo financing transactions for all mortgage related products including prime and sub-prime mortgages, home equity loans and sub/non-performing mortgage loans and real estate. President ING: Public Company; 10,001+ employees; Financial Services industry 1999 – 2001 (2 years) - Originated, executed and structured asset-backed commercial paper facilities, securitizations and other financing transactions for a wide variety of esoteric asset types including private label credit cards, franchise fees/royalties, trade receivables and auto loans. Maintained primary contact with customers, rating agencies and attorneys on all transactions. Vice President Credit Suisse First Boston Public Company; 10,001+ employees; CS; Investment Banking industry 1994 – 1999 (5 years) - Managed all aspects of residential and auto whole loan purchase, sale, and reverse repurchase facilities. Sourced whole loan business directly as well as through fixed income sales force. Worked with sellers, issuers, investors, accountants, rating agencies, servicers, custodians, due diligence

firms and attorneys to ensure timely execution. Monitored existing positions through mark-to market and delinquency analysis. Conducted pre-bid review and market value analysis of collateral and trade terms, negotiated legal documents, prepared commitment letters, sales memorandums and settlement letters. Maintained primary contact with reverse repurchase counterparties – analyzing proposed purchases, sales and ongoing mark-to-market of positions. Vice President Lehman Brothers Public Company; LEH; Capital Markets industry 1992 – 1994 (2 years) - Supervised 8 staff people in preparation and analysis of matched book trading daily p/l. Managed balance sheet requirements for repo desk; coordinated off-balance sheet trades with customers and sales force. - Coordinated daily firm balance sheet reduction process consisting of participating in balance sheet allocation decisions, producing position reports, developing desk specific balance sheet management strategies, approving specific transactions and coordinating the asset reduction process across the firm. Developed and implemented numerous system enhancements that improved the firm‘s ability to reduce balance sheet levels at minimum cost. Audit Manager – Financial Services Division Arthur Andersen Accounting industry 1987 – 1992 (5 years). - Planned, coordinated and supervised audits of international corporations, primarily in the financial services industry. Drafted financial statements and footnote disclosures, including SEC filings for registered broker-dealers. To view a MERS MEMBER ID profile type any 0-9 and Letter A-Z and find who the intermediary funder was of your transactions. https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mbrsearch/mbrsearch.htm Joy E Margolies: RMBS Management Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Financial Services 40 Wall St Fl 60 New York, NY 10005-1333 United States Source: Jigsaw

Keep your ‗eyes‘ peeled to: Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, LTD symbol ‗LTB‘ Successor Shinsei BankiI Tokyo Japan acquired Greenwich Capital Markets a Connecticut-based securities firm, thus giving LTCB a US-Based Securities Business. ‗SBC‘ now part of UBS AG began a joint venture with LTCB during this period – NATIONSBANK OF GA (Nations) – Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (BOA if you please) as Agent and Agency retaining ‗NT&SA‘ and designation until renamed to Bank of America NA as part of BankAmerica Corp‘s merger with NATIONSBANK in 1998. Hmmmmm ‗marriage‘ at same time of another related coconspirators whose surviving corporation took on name of valuable ‗trade name‘ of commercial bank ‗Wells Fargo & Co‘ creating a new corporation and both existing conglomerates survived 11/2/98. The parent moved into Norwest Corp‘s headquarters 420 Montgomery St, San Francisco CA and replaced the storefront signs with ‗Wells Fargo‘. The Foothills group and its subsidiary Foothills Capital Group 1992/1993 acquisitions of INDYMAC/COUNTRYWIDE FUNDING of great interest. And Foothill Group and subsidiary Foothill Capital Group of great interest include UBS Asset Management as investment advisor ‗UBS‘ whose agreements claim sole voting & dispositive power & full beneficial ownership with respect to…. Recovery Equity Investors LP, whose GP is Recovery Equity Partners LP and Pacific Crest Capital Corp, a newly formed parent of Foothill Thrift and Loan 12/23/93 (during acquistions represented NY 6% stock ownership 12/31/1993 and stock ownership is where UBS puts its profits to protect them in preferred senior ownership transactions). 13 Registrants include: Wells Fargo & Co/MN fka Norwest Corp) and US Home Corp/DE Symbols ‗US‘ ‗UHG‘ ‗USHm‘ ‗USHe‘ Texas. Who is Peter Schwab and his replacement. Peter retired end of 2010 after 39 years industry veteran.

H. Jordan will stand alone responsible for the very pipelines Wells Fargo‘s Foothill and subsidiary Foothill Capital Corp. asset-based lending group? And Wells Fargo Capital Finance the trade name for some asset-based lending, accounts receivable and purchase order finance services of Wells Fargo.

Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton – Brooklyn Judge Arthur Schack is a Local Hero, Decision

Casts Light on Fraudulent Mortgage Paperwork

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 27, 2010 · 12 Comments

First from the NY Daily News…

(Full Decision Below)

Brooklyn judge Arthur Schack is a local hero, decision casts light on fraudulent mortgage

paperwork

Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack has done it again.

The self-described “little judge from Brooklyn” has dismissed another foreclosure case, this time

in favor of an East New York homeowner who did not even have a lawyer.

Schack ruled Thursday that California’s OneWest, the last of several banks that relied on an

admitted “robo-signer” to transfer the $492,000 mortgage on Covan Drayton’s Hemlock St.

home among them, failed to prove it even owns the property in question.

“To prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure is dismissed without

prejudice,” Schack wrote.

His startling, 37-page decision is the latest of several that have turned him into a hero of troubled

homeowners across the nation.

With 6 million homes nationwide in foreclosure or facing the imminent risk of foreclosure, the

federal government’s response has been shamefully slow.

Only 475,000 homes are in some form of permanent modification. The Obama administration

has spent more effort bailing out a few big lenders than millions of little borrowers.

Shack’s opinion, released by the courts Tuesday, is the most detailed picture yet of the shoddy or

fraudulent mortgage paperwork too many of those lenders used.

This is not just a matter of minor technicalities, as the banks and their spin masters want us the

believe – the same ones who told us the subprime crisis would blow over.

At the heart of the Drayton case is an Austin, Tex., robo-signer named Erica Johnson-Seck. In

July, Johnson-Seck admitted in a Florida deposition in another case that she “executes 750

foreclosure documents a week; without a notary present; does not spend more than 30 seconds

signing each document; [and] does not read the documents before signing them,” Schack noted.

Johnson-Seck’s signature appears repeatedly in documents connected to Drayton’s mortgage,

and in several other foreclosure cases Schack dismissed in the past three years.

At different times, she signed notarized documents assigning the loan, claiming to be a vice

president of MERS (a private financial recording service for major banks), a vice president of

INDYMAC, a vice president of Deutsche Bank and a vice president of OneWest.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com

Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton

2010 NY Slip Op 20429

Decided on October 21, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County

Schack, J.

~

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. (ONEWEST), moved for an order

of reference and related relief for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn,

New York (Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), upon the default of all defendants. The

Kings County Supreme Court Foreclosure Department forwarded the motion papers to me

on August 30, 2010. While drafting this decision and order, I received on October 14, 2010,

in the midst of the present national media attention about "robo-signers," an October 13,

2010-letter from plaintiff's counsel, by which "[i]t is respectfully requested that plaintiff's

application be withdrawn at this time." There was no explanation or reason given by

plaintiff's counsel for his request to withdraw the motion for an order of reference other

than "[i]t is our intention that a new application containing updated information will be re-

submitted shortly."

The Court grants the request of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw the instant motion for an

order of reference. However, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant

foreclosure action is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion for

an order of [*2]reference within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, by providing the

Court with necessary and additional documentation.

First, the Court requires proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee,

CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL, LLC (CAMBRIDGE), to its nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), to assign the subject mortgage and note on March

16, 2009 to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB (INDYMAC). INDYMAC subsequently assigned

the subject mortgage and note to its successor, ONEWEST, on May 14, 2009.

Second, the Court requires an affidavit from Erica A. Johnson-Seck, a conflicted

"robosigner," explaining her employment status. A "robo-signer" is a person who quickly

signs hundreds or thousands of foreclosure documents in a month, despite swearing that he

or she has personally reviewed the mortgage documents and has not done so. Ms. Johnson-

Seck, in a July 9, 2010 deposition taken in a Palm Beach County, Florida foreclosure case,

admitted that she: is a "robo-signer" who executes about 750 mortgage documents a

week, without a notary public present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each

document; does not read the documents before signing them; and, did not provide me with

affidavits about her employment in two prior cases. (See Stephanie Armour, "Mistakes

Widespread on Foreclosures, Lawyers Say," USA Today, Sept. 27, 2010; Ariana Eunjung

Cha, "OneWest Bank Employee: Not More Than 30 Seconds' to Sign Each Foreclosure

Document," Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2010).

In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March

16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009

INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30,

2009-affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her

employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist

in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President

of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST.

Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor

MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj,

18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both

assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me, Indymac Bank, FSB, v

Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she executed an

affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me,

Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).

Background

Defendant COVAN DRAYTON (DRAYTON) executed the subject [*3] mortgage and note on

January 12, 2007, borrowing $492,000.00 from CAMBRIDGE. MERS "acting solely as a

nominee for Lender [CAMBRIDGE]" and "FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE,

MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD," recorded the instant mortgage and note on March

19, 2007, in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File

Number (CRFN) 2007000143961. Plaintiff DRAYTON allegedly defaulted in his mortgage

loan payment on September 1, 2008. Then, MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assigned

the instant nonperforming mortgage and note to INDYMAC, on March 16, 2009. Erica A.

Johnson-Seck executed the assignment as a Vice President of MERS, as nominee for

CAMBRIDGE. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of

New York, on March 24, 2009, at CRFN 200900084809. However, as will be discussed

below, there is an issue whether MERS, as CAMBRIDGE's nominee, was authorized by

CAMBRIDGE, its principal, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to plaintiff

INDYMAC. Subsequently, almost two months later, Ms. Johnson-Seck, now as a Vice

President of INDYMAC, on May 14, 2009, assigned the subject mortgage and note to

ONEWEST. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of

New York, on May 22, 2009, at CRFN 2009000155018.

Plaintiff ONEWEST commenced the instant foreclosure action on June 18, 2009 with the

filing of the summons, complaint and notice of pendency. On August 6, 2009, plaintiff

ONEWEST filed the instant motion for an order of reference. Attached to plaintiff

ONEWEST's moving papers is an affidavit of merit by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, dated June 30,

2009, in which she claims to be a Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST. She states, in 1, that

"[t]he facts recited herein are from my own knowledge and from review of the documents

and records kept in the ordinary course of business with respect to the servicing of this

mortgage." There are outstanding questions about Ms. Johnson-Seck's

employment, whether she executed sworn documents without a notary public

present and whether she actually read and personally reviewed the information in

the documents that she executed.

July 9, 2010 deposition of Erica A. Johnson-Seck in the Machado case

On July 9, 2010, nine days after executing the affidavit of merit in the instant action, Ms.

Johnson-Seck was deposed in a Florida foreclosure action, Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, v

Machado (Fifteenth Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2008

CA 037322XXXX MB AW), by defendant Machado's counsel, Thomas E. Ice, Esq. Ms.

Johnson-Seck admitted to being a "robo-signer," executing sworn documents outside the

presence of a notary public, not reading the documents before signing them and not

complying with my prior orders in the Maraj and Bethley decisions.

Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted in her Machado deposition testimony that she was not employed

by INDYMAC on May 14, 2009, the day she assigned the subject mortgage and note to

ONEWEST, even though she stated in the May 14, 2009 assignment that she was a Vice

President of INDYMAC. According to her testimony she was employed on May 14, 2010 by

assignee ONEWEST.

Then the Schack goes on to say later in the decision...

Then, plaintiff ONEWEST must address the tangled employment situation of "robosigner"

Erica A. Johnson-Seck. She admitted in her July 9, 2010 deposition in the Machado case

that she never provided me with affidavits of her employment for the prior three years and

an explanation of why she wore so-many corporate hats in Maraj and Bethley. Further, in

Deutsche Bank v Harris, Ms. Johnson-Seck executed an affidavit of merit as Vice President

of Deutsche Bank. If plaintiff renews its motion for an order of reference, the Court must

get to the bottom of Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment status and her "robo-signing." The

Court reminds plaintiff ONEWEST's counsel that Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 161 of the Machado

deposition, volunteered, at lines 4 - 5 to "gladly show up in his court and provide him

everything he wants."

Lastly, if plaintiff ONEWEST'S counsel moves to renew its application for an order of

reference, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new filing requirement to submit, under

penalties of perjury, an affirmation that he has taken reasonable steps, including inquiring

of plaintiff ONEWEST, the lender, and reviewing all papers, to verify the accuracy of the

submitted documents in support of the instant foreclosure action.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to withdraw its motion for

an order of reference, for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York

(Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 15183/09, is dismissed without

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant action, filed with the Kings County

Clerk on June 18, 2009, by plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to foreclose a mortgage for

real property located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116,

County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to renew, within sixty

(60) days of this decision and order, its motion for an order of reference for the premises

located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings),

provided that plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., submits to the Court: (1) proof of the

grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC, to its

nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., to assign the

subject mortgage and note to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB; and (2) an affidavit

by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.,

explaining: her employment history for the past three years; why a conflict of

interest does not exist in how she acted as a Vice President of assignor MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Vice President of assignee/

assignor INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff

ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. in this action; why she was a Vice President of both

assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee

DEUTSCHE BANK in Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings

County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both assignor MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee INDYMAC BANK, FSB in

Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009);

and, why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK

in Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No.

35549/07); and (3) counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. must comply with

the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge [*17] Jonathan

Lippman on October 20, 2010, by submitting an affirmation,using the new

standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of

perjury, that counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. has personally reviewed

plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents and records in the instant action and

counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. confirms the factual accuracy of

plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s court filings and the accuracy of the

notarizations in plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Link to full decision below...

Check it out...

It is fascinating...

Bankruptcy & Foreclosure

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Judge Schack's latest masterpiece on robo-signing It only took two judicial foreclosure states: Florida and New York to unravel the shoddy foreclosure

practices by financial institutions that got all the bail-out money, yet did not invest a dime in the mortgages

upon which they are now foreclosing. Kudos to Judge Schack in NY and Thomas Ice, Esq. in FL. This

opinion presents a good list of things and documents many homeowners will want to request in defending

against a foreclosure.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 1 -

2010 NY Slip Op 20429 Onewest Bank, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. Covan Drayton, et al., Defendants. 15183/09

Supreme Court Of New York Kings County Decided on October 21, 2010

Plaintiff Gerald Roth, Esq. Stein Wiener and Roth, LLP Carle Place NY

Defendant did not answer

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. (ONEWEST), moved for an order of

reference and related relief for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block

4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), upon the default of all defendants. The Kings County Supreme Court

Foreclosure Department forwarded the motion papers to me on August 30, 2010. While drafting this

decision and order, I received on October 14, 2010, in the midst of the present national media attention

about "robo-signers," an October 13, 2010-letter from plaintiff's counsel, by which "[i]t is respectfully

requested that plaintiff's application be withdrawn at this time." There was no explanation or reason given

by plaintiff's counsel for his request to withdraw the motion for an order of reference other than "[i]t is our

intention that a new application containing updated information will be re-submitted shortly."

The Court grants the request of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw the instant motion for an order of reference.

However, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed without

prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion for an order of Page 2 reference within sixty (60) days of

this decision and order, by providing the Court with necessary and additional documentation. First, the

Court requires proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL,

LLC (CAMBRIDGE), to its nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.

(MERS), to assign the subject mortgage and note on March 16, 2009 to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK,

FSB (INDYMAC). INDYMAC subsequently assigned the subject mortgage and note to its successor,

ONEWEST, on May 14, 2009.

Second, the Court requires an affidavit from Erica A. Johnson-Seck, a conflicted "robo-signer," explaining

her employment status. A "robo-signer" is a person who quickly signs hundreds or thousands of

foreclosure documents in a month, despite swearing that he or she has personally reviewed the mortgage

documents and has not done so. Ms. Johnson-Seck, in a July 9, 2010 deposition taken in a Palm Beach

County, Florida foreclosure case, admitted that she: is a "robo-signer" who executes about 750 mortgage

documents a week, without a notary public present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each

document; does not read the documents before signing them; and, did not provide me with affidavits

about her employment in two prior cases. (See Stephanie Armour, "Mistakes Widespread on

Foreclosures, Lawyers Say," USA Today, Sept. 27, 2010; Ariana Eunjung Cha, "OneWest Bank

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 2 -

Employee: Not More Than 30 Seconds' to Sign Each Foreclosure Document, " Washington Post, Sept.

30, 2010). In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the

March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009

INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-

affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment

history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action

with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor

INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST. Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must

explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a

second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why

she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me,

Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she

executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me,

Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).

Third, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new Court filing requirement, announced yesterday by

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, which was promulgated to preserve the integrity of the foreclosure

process. Plaintiff's counsel must submit an affirmation, using the new standard Court form, that he has

personally reviewed plaintiff's documents and records in the instant action and has confirmed the factual

accuracy of the court filings and the notarizations in these documents. Counsel is reminded that the new

standard Court affirmation form states that "[t]he wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure

proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other

sanctions upon participating counsel."

Background

Defendant COVAN DRAYTON (DRAYTON) executed the subject Page 3 mortgage and note on January

12, 2007, borrowing $492,000.00 from CAMBRIDGE. MERS "acting solely as a nominee for Lender

[CAMBRIDGE]" and "FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE

MORTGAGEE OF RECORD," recorded the instant mortgage and note on March 19, 2007, in the Office

of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000143961.

Plaintiff DRAYTON allegedly defaulted in his mortgage loan payment on September 1, 2008. Then,

MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assigned the instant nonperforming mortgage and note to

INDYMAC, on March 16, 2009. Erica A. Johnson-Seck executed the assignment as a Vice President of

MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of

the City of New York, on March 24, 2009, at CRFN 200900084809. However, as will be discussed below,

there is an issue whether MERS, as CAMBRIDGE's nominee, was authorized by CAMBRIDGE, its

principal, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to plaintiff INDYMAC. Subsequently,

almost two months later, Ms. Johnson-Seck, now as a Vice President of INDYMAC, on May 14, 2009,

assigned the subject mortgage and note to ONEWEST. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the

City Register of the City of New York, on May 22, 2009, at CRFN 2009000155018.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 3 -

Plaintiff ONEWEST commenced the instant foreclosure action on June 18, 2009 with the filing of the

summons, complaint and notice of pendency. On August 6, 2009, plaintiff ONEWEST filed the instant

motion for an order of reference. Attached to plaintiff ONEWEST's moving papers is an affidavit of merit

by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, dated June 30, 2009, in which she claims to be a Vice President of plaintiff

ONEWEST. She states, in ¶ 1, that "[t]he facts recited herein are from my own knowledge and from

review of the documents and records kept in the ordinary course of business with respect to the servicing

of this mortgage." There are outstanding questions about Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment, whether she

executed sworn documents without a notary public present and whether she actually read and personally

reviewed the information in the documents that she executed. July 9, 2010 deposition of Erica A.

Johnson-Seck in the Machado case On July 9, 2010, nine days after executing the affidavit of merit in the

instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck was deposed in a Florida foreclosure action, Indymac Federal Bank,

FSB, v Machado (Fifteenth Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2008 CA

037322XXXX MB AW), by defendant Machado's counsel, Thomas E. Ice, Esq. Ms. Johnson-Seck

admitted to being a "robo-signer," executing sworn documents outside the presence of a notary public,

not reading the documents before signing them and not complying with my prior orders in the Maraj and

Bethley decisions.

Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted in her Machado deposition testimony that she was not employed by

INDYMAC on May 14, 2009, the day she assigned the subject mortgage and note to ONEWEST, even

though she stated in the May 14, 2009 assignment that she was a Vice President of INDYMAC.

According to her testimony she was employed on May 14, 2010 by assignee ONEWEST. The following

questions were asked and then answered by Ms. Johnson Seck, at p. 4, line 11-p. 5, line 4: Q. Could you

state your full name for the record, please. A. Erica Antoinette Johnson-Seck. Page 4

Q. And what is your business address? A. 7700 West Parmer Lane, P-A-R-M-E-R, Building D, Austin,

Texas 78729. Q. And who is your employer? A. OneWest Bank. Q. How long have you been employed

by OneWest Bank? A. Since March 19th, 2009. Q. Prior to that you were employed by IndyMac Federal

Bank, FSB? A. Yes. Q. And prior to that you were employed by IndyMac Bank, FSB? A. Yes. Q. Your title

with OneWest Bank is what? A. Vice president, bankruptcy and foreclosure. Despite executing, on March

16, 2009, the MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assignment to INDYMAC, as Vice President of

MERS, she admitted that she is not an officer of MERS. Further, she claimed to have "signing authority"

from several major banking institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The

following questions were asked and then answered by Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 6, lines 5-21: Q. Are you

also an officer of

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 4 -

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems? A. No. Q. You have signing authority to sign on behalf of

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as a vice president, correct? A. Yes. Q. Are you an officer of

any other corporation? A. No. Q. Do you have signing authority for any other corporation? A. Yes. Q.

What corporations are those? A. IndyMac Federal Bank, Indymac Bank, FSB, FDIC as receiver for

Indymac Bank, FDIC as conservator for Indymac, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York, U.S. Bank. And

that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Then, she answered the following question about her

"signing authority," at page 7, lines 3-10: Q. When you say you have signing authority, is your authority to

sign as an officer of those corporations? A. Some. Deutsche Bank I have a POA [power of attorney] to

sign as attorney-in-fact. Others I sign as an officer. The FDIC I sign as attorney-in-fact. IndyMac Bank and

IndyMac Federal Bank I now sign as attorney-in-fact. I only sign as a vice president for OneWest.

Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted that she is not an officer of MERS, has no idea how MERS is organized and

does not know why she signs assignments as a MERS officer. Further, she admitted that the MERS

assignments she executes are prepared by an outside vendor, Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS),

which ships the documents to her Austin, Texas office from Minnesota. Moreover, she admitted executing

MERS assignments without a notary public Page 5 present. She also testified that after the MERS

assignments are notarized they are shipped back to LPS in Minnesota. LPS, in its 2009 Form 10-K, filed

with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, states that it is "a provider of integrated technology

and services to the mortgage lending industry, with market leading positions in mortgage processing and

default management services in the U.S. [p. 1]"; "we offer lenders, servicers and attorneys certain

administrative and support services in connection with managing foreclosures [p. 4]"; "[a] significant focus

of our marketing efforts is on the top 50 U.S. banks [p. 5]"; and, "our two largest customers, Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., each accounted for more than 10% of our aggregate

revenue [p. 5]."LPS is now the subject of a federal criminal investigation related to its foreclosure

document preparation. (See Ariana Eunjung Cha. "Lender Processing Services Acknowledges

Employees Allowed to Sign for Managers on Foreclosure Paperwork," Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2010).

Last week, on October 13, 2010, the Florida Attorney-General issued to LPS an "Economic Crimes

Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum," seeking various foreclosure documents prepared by LPS and

employment records for various "robo-signers." The following answers to questions were given by Ms.

Johnson-Seck in the Machado deposition, at p. 116, line 4-p. 119, line 16:

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 5 -

Q. Now, given our last exchange, I'm sure you will agree that you are not a vice president of MERS in any

sense of the word other than being authorized to sign as one? A. Yes. Q. You are not-- A. Sorry. Q.

That's all right. You are not paid by MERS? A. No. Q. You have no job duties as vice president of MERS?

A. No. Q. You don't attend any board meetings of MERS? A. No. Q. You don't attend any meetings at all

of MERS? A. No. Q. You don't report to the president of MERS? A. No. Q. Who is the president of

MERS? A. I have no idea. Q. You're not involved in any governance of MERS? A. No. Q. The authority

you have says that you can be an assistant secretary, right? A. Yes. Q. And yet you don't report to the

secretary-- A. No. Q.--of MERS. You don't have any MERS' employees who report to you? Page 6

A. No. Q. You don't have any vote or say in any corporate decisions of MERS? A. No. Q. Do you know

where the MERS' offices are located? A. No. Q. Do you know how many offices they have? A. No. Q. Do

you know where they are headquartered? A. No. Q. I take it then you're never been to their

headquarters? A. No. Q. Do you know how many employees they have? A. No. Q. But you know that you

have counterparts all over the country signing as MERS's vice-presidents and assistant secretaries? A.

Yes. Q. Some of them are employees of third-party foreclosure service companies, like LPS? A. Yes. Q.

Why does MERS appoint you as a vice president or assistant secretary as opposed to a manager or an

authorized agent to sign in that capacity? A. I don't know. Q. Why does MERS give you any kind of a

title?

A. I don't know. Q. Take me through the procedure for drafting and--the drafting and execution of this

Assignment of Mortgage which is Exhibit E. A. It is drafted by our forms, uploaded into process

management, downloaded by LPS staff in Minnesota, shipped to Austin where we sign and notarize it,

and hand it back to an LPS employee, who then ships it back to Minnesota, up uploads a copy

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 6 -

and mails the original to the firm. Q. Very similar to all the other document, preparation of all the other

documents. A. (Nods head.) Q. Was that a yes? You were shaking your head. A. Yes. Q. As with the

other documents, you personally don't review any of the information that's on here-- A. No. Q.--other than

to make sure that you are authorized to sign as the person you're signing for? A. Yes. Page 7

Q. Okay. As with the other documents, you signed these and took them to be notarized just to a Notary

that's outside your office? A. Yes. Q. And they will get notarized as soon as they can. It may or may not

be the same day that you executed it? A. That's true. Further, with respect to MERS, Ms. Johnson-Seck

testified in answering questions, at p. 138, line 2-p. 139, line 17: Q. Do you have an understanding that

MERS is a membership organization? A. Yes, yes. Q. And the members are-- A. Yes. Q.--banking entities

such as OneWest? A. Yes. Q. In fact, OneWest is a member of MERS? A. Yes. Q. Is Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company a member of MERS? A. I don't know. Q. Most of the major banking institutions in

the Untied States, at least, are members of MERS, correct? A. That sounds right. Q. It's owned and

operated by banking institutions? A. I'm not a big--I don't, I don't know that much about the ins and outs of

MERS. I'm sorry. I understand what it's for, but I don't understand the nitty-gritty. Q. What is it for?

A. To track the transfer of doc--of interest from one entity to another. I know that it was initially created so

that a servicer did not have to record the assignments, or if they didn't, there was still a system to keep

track of the transfer of property. Q. Does it also have a function to hold the mortgage separate and apart

from the note so that note can be transferred from entity to entity to entity, bank to bank to bank-- A. That

sounds right. Q.--without ever having to rerecord the mortgage? A. That sounds right. Q. So it's a savings

device. It makes it more efficient to transfer notes? A. Yes. Q. And cheaper? A. Yes. Moreover, Ms.

Johnson-Seck testified that one of her job duties was to sign documents, which at that time took her

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 7 -

about ten minutes per day [p. 11]. Further, she admitted, at p. 13, line Page 8

11-p. 14, line 15, that she signs about 750 documents per week and doesn't read each document. Q.

Okay. How many documents would you say that you sign on aweek on average, in a week on average?

A. I could have given you that number if you had that question in there because I would brought the

report. However, I'm going to guess, today I saw an e-mail that 1, 073 docs are in the office for signing.

So if we just--and there's about that a day. So let's say 6, 000 a week and I do probably--let's see. There's

eight of us signing documents, so what's the math? Q. Six thousand divided by eight, that gives me 750.

A. That sounds, that sounds about right. Q. Okay. That would be a reasonable estimate of how many you

sign, you personally sign per week? A. Yes. Q. And that would include Lost Note Affidavits, Affidavits of

Debt? A. Yes. Q. What other kinds of documents would be included in that? A. Assignments,

declarations. I can sign anything related to a bankruptcy or a foreclosure. Q. How long do you spend

executing each document? A. have changed my signature considerably. It's just an E now.So not more

than 30 seconds. Q. Is it true that you don't read each document before you sign it? A. That's true.

[Emphasis added]

Ms. Johnson-Seck, in the instant action, signed her full name on the March 16, 2009 MERS, as nominee

for CAMBRIDGE, assignment to INDYMAC. She switched to the letter E in signing the May 14, 2009

INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment and the June 30, 2009 affidavit of merit on behalf of ONEWEST.

Additionally. she testified about how LPS prepares the documents in Minnesota and ships them to her

Austin office, with LPS personnel present in her Austin office [pp. 16-17]. Ms. Johnson-Seck described

the document signing process, at p. 17, line 6-p. 18, line 18: Q. Take me through the procedure for

getting your actual signature on the documents once they've gone through this quality control process? A.

The documents are delivered to me for signature and I do a quick purview to make sure that I'm not

signing for an entity that I cannot sign for. And I sign the document and I hand it to the Notary, who

notarizes it, who then hands it back to LPS who uploads the document so that the firms know it's

available and they send an original. Q. "They" being LPS? A. Yes. Q. Are all the documents physically,

that you were

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 8 -

supposed to sign, are they physically on your desk? A. Yes. Page 9

Q. You don't go somewhere else to sign documents? A. No. Q. When you sign them, there's no one else

in your office? A. Sometimes. Q. Well, the Notaries are not in your office, correct? A. They don't sit in my

office, no. Q. And the witnesses who, if you need witnesses on the document, are not sitting in your

office? A. That's right. Q. So you take your ten minutes and you sign them and then you give them to the

supervisor of the Notaries, correct? A. I supervise the Notaries, so I just give them to a Notary. Q. You

give all, you give the whole group that you just signed to one Notary? A. Yes. [Emphasis added] Ms.

Johnson-Seck testified, at p. 20, line 1-p. 21, line 4 about notaries not witnessing her signature: Q. I'm

mostly interested in how long it takes for the Notary to notarize your signature. A. I can't say categorically

because the Notary, that's not the only job they do, so. Q. In any event, it doesn't have to be the same

day? A. No. Q. When they notarize it and they put a date that they're notarizing it, is it the date that you

signed it or is it the date that they're notarizing it? A. I don't know.

Q. When you execute a sworn document, do you make any kindof a verbal acknowledgment or oath to

anyone? A. I don't know if I know what you're talking about. What's a sworn document? Q. Well, an

affidavit. A. Oh. No. Q. In any event, there's no Notary in the room for you to-- A. Right. Q. --take an oath

with you, correct? A. No there is not. Q. In fact, the Notaries can't see you sign the documents; is that

correct? A. Not unless that made it their business to do so? Q. To peek into your office? A. Yes.

[Emphasis added] As noted above, I found Ms. Johnson-Seck engaged in "robo-signing" in Deutsche

Bank v Maraj and Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley. In both foreclosure cases I denied plaintiffs' motions

Page 10 for orders of reference without prejudice with leave to renew if, among other things, Ms.

Johnson-Seck could explain in affidavits: her employment history for the past three years; why she was a

Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in Maraj;

and, Vice President of INDYMAC in Bethley. Mr. Ice questioned Ms. Johnson-Seck about my Maraj

decision and showed her the Maraj decision as exhibit M in the Machado deposition. The following

colloquy at the Maraj deposition took place at p. 153, line 15-p. 156, line 9.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 9 -

Q. Exhibit M is a document that you saw before in your last deposition, correct? A. Yes. Q. It's an opinion

from Judge Schack up in New York-- A. Yes. Q.--correct? You're familiar with that? A. Yes. Q. In it, he

says that you signed an Assignment of Mortgage as the vice president of MERS, correct-- A. Yes. Q.--just

as you did in this case? Judge Schack also says that you executed an affidavit as an officer of Deutsche

Bank National Trust Company, correct? A. Yes. Q. And is that true, you executed an affidavit for

Deutsche Bank in that case? A. That is not true. Q. You never executed a document as an officer of

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in that case, Judge Schack's case? A. Let me just read it so I

can--I have to refresh my memory completely. Q. Okay. A. I don't remember. Most likely. Q. That you did?

A. It sounds reasonable that I may have. I don't remember, and since it's not attached, I can't say. Q. And

as a result, Judge Schack wanted to know if you were engaged in self-dealing by wearing two corporate

hats? A. Yes. Q. And the court was concerned that there may be fraud on the part of the bank? A. I

guess. Q. I mean he said that, right? A. Oh, okay. I didn't read the whole thing. Okay. Q. Okay. The court

ordered Deutsche Bank to produce an affidavit from you describing your employment history for the past

three years, correct? Page 11 A. That's what this says. Q. Did you do that? A. No, because we were

never--no affidavit ever existed and no request ever came to produce such a document. The last time we

spoke, I told you that in-house counsel was reviewing the whole issue and that's kind of where--and we

still haven't received any communication to produce an affidavit. Q. From your counsel? A. From

anywhere. Q. Well, you're reading Judge Schack's opinion. He seems to want one. Isn't that pretty clear

on its face. A. We didn't get--we never even got a copy of this. Q. Okay. But now you have it-- A. And-- Q.

And you had it when we met at our deposition back in February 5th. A. And our in-house counsel's

response to this is we were never--this was never requested of me and it was his recommendation not to

comply. Q. What has become of that case? A. I don't know. Q. Was it settled? A. I don't know.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 10 -

After a break in the Machado deposition proceedings, Mr. Ice questioned Ms. Johnson-Seck about

various documents that were subpoenaed for the July 9, 2010 deposition, including her employment

affidavits that I required in both Maraj and Bethley. Ms. Johnson-Seck answered the following questions

at p. 159, line 19-p. 161, line 9: Q. So let's start with the duces tecum part of you notice, which is the list

of documents. No. 1 was: The affidavit of the last three years of deponent's employment provided to

Judge Schack in response to the order dated January 31st, 2008 in the case of Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company vs. Maraj, Case No. 25981-07, Supreme Court of New York. We talked about that earlier.

There is no such affidavit, correct? A. Correct. Q. By the way, why was IndyMac permitted to bring the

case in Deutsche Bank's name in that case? A. I don't--I don't know. Now, errors have been made. Q. No.

2: The affidavit of the deponent provided to Judge Schack in response to the order dated February 6th,

2009 in the case of IndyMac Bank, FSB vs, Bethley, New York Slip Opinion 50186, New York Supreme

Court 2/5/09, "explaining," and this is in quotes, "her employment history for the past three years; and,

why a conflict of interest does not exist in how she acted as vice president of assignee Page 12

IndyMac Bank, FSB in the instant action, and vice president of both Mortgage Electronic Registrations

Systems, Inc. and Deutsche Bank in Deutsche Bank vs. Maraj," and it gives the citation and that's the

case referred to in item 1 of our request. Do you have that affidavit with you here today? A. No. Q. Were

you aware of that second opinion where Judge Schack asks for a second affidavit? A. Nope. Where is

Judge Schack sending these? Q. Presumably to your counsel. A. I wonder if he has the right address.

Maybe that's what we should do, send Judge Schack the most recent, and I will gladly show up in his

court and provide him everything he wants. Q. Okay. Well, I sent you this back in March. Have your or

your counsel or in-house counsel at IndyMac pursued that? A. No. [Emphasis added] Counsel for plaintiff

ONEWEST has leave to produce Ms. Johnson-Seck in my courtroom to "gladly show up... and provide

[me]... everything he wants."

Discussion

Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action,

upon the default of the defendant or defendant's admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a

referee "to compute the amount due to the plaintiff." In the instant action, plaintiff ONEWEST's application

for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale

against defendant DRAYTON. (Home Sav. of Am., F.A. v Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770 [2d Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff's request to withdraw its application for an order of reference is granted.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 11 -

However, to allow this action to continue without seeking the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure action, to

obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale, makes a mockery of and wastes the resources of the judicial

system. Continuing the instant action without moving for an order of reference is the judicial equivalent of

a "timeout." Granting a "timeout" to plaintiff ONEWEST to allow it to re-submit "a new application

containing new information... shortly" is a waste of judicial resources. Therefore, the instant action is

dismissed without prejudice, with leave granted to plaintiff ONEWEST to renew its motion for an order of

reference within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, if plaintiff ONEWEST and plaintiff ONEWEST's

counsel can satisfactorily address the various issues previously enumerated. Further, the dismissal of the

instant foreclosure action requires the cancellation of the notice of pendency. CPLR § 6501 provides that

the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real

property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that "would affect the title to, or the

possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the

possession of real property." The Court of Appeals, in 5308 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d

313, 319 [1984]), commented that "[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its

ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of Page 13 whether a

purchaser had any notice of the pending suit," and, at 320, that "the statutory scheme permits a party to

effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review." CPLR § 6514 (a)

provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:

The Court, upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such notice as it may require, shall direct any

county clerk to cancel a notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed within the

time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to

appeal from a final judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a final judgment against

the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant to section 551. [emphasis added] The plain meaning of the

word "abated," as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. "Abatement" is defined as "the act

of eliminating or nullifying." (Black's Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]). "An action which has been abated is

dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided

that a cause of action remains (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1)." (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d

Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that the "[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in

the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR § 6501 (see 5303

Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1d

Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed])." Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in

the mandatory cancellation of plaintiff ONEWEST's notice of pendency against the subject property "in

the exercise of the inherent power of the court." Moreover, "[t]o have a proper assignment of a mortgage

by an authorized agent, a power of attorney is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the

authority to assign the mortgage." (HSBC Bank, USA v Yeasmin, 27 Misc 3d 1227 [A], *3 [Sup Ct, Kings

County 2010]). "No special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the

language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it [Emphasis added]." (Tawil v Finkelstein

Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 223 AD2d 52, 55 [1d Dept 1996]). (See Suraleb, Inc. v International

Trade Club, Inc., 13 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2004]).

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 12 -

MERS, as described above, recorded the subject mortgage as "nominee" for CAMBRIDGE. The word

"nominee" is defined as "[a] person designated to act in place of another, usu. in a very limited way" or

"[a] party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others." (Black's Law Dictionary 1076 [8th ed 2004]).

"This definition suggests that a nominee possesses few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a

principal whom the nominee serves." (Landmark National Bank v Kesler, 289 Kan 528, 538 [2009]). The

Supreme Court of Kansas, in Landmark National Bank, 289 Kan at 539, observed that: The legal status of

a nominee, then, depends on the context of the relationship of the nominee to its principal. Various courts

have interpreted the relationship of MERS and the lender as an agency relationship. See In re Sheridan,

2009 WL631355, at *4 (Bankr. D. Idaho, March 12, 2009) (MERS "acts not on its own account. Its Page

14 capacity is representative."); Mortgage Elec. Registrations Systems, Inc. v Southwest, 2009 Ark. 152

___, ___SW3d___, 2009 WL 723182 (March 19, 2009) ("MERS, by the terms of the deed of trust, and its

own stated purposes, was the lender's agent"); La Salle Nat. Bank v Lamy, 12 Misc 3d 1191 [A], at *2

[Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006])... ("A nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not effectively

assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by

the nominee.") The New York Court of Appeals in MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine (8 NY3d 90 [2006]),

explained how MERS acts as the agent of mortgagees, holding at 96:

In 1993, the MERS system was created by several large participants in the real estate mortgage industry

to track ownership interests in residential mortgages. Mortgage lenders and other entities, known as

MERS members, subscribe to the MERS system and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and

tracking of ownership and transfers of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appointMERS to act as

their common agent on all mortgages they register in the MERS system. [Emphasis added] Thus, it is

clear that MERS's relationship with its member lenders is that of agent with principal. This is a fiduciary

relationship, resulting from the manifestation of consent by one person to another, allowing the other to

act on his behalf, subject to his control and consent. The principal is the one for whom action is to be

taken, and the agent is the one who acts.It has been held that the agent, who has a fiduciary relationship

with the principal, "is a party who acts on behalf of the principal with the latter's express, implied, or

apparent authority." (Maurillo v Park Slope U-Haul, 194 AD2d 142, 146 [2d Dept 1992]). "Agents are

bound at all times to exercise the utmost good faith toward their principals. They must act in accordance

with the highest and truest principles of morality." (Elco Shoe Mfrs. v Sisk, 260 NY 100, 103 [1932]). (See

Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Development Corp., 96 NY 409 [2001]); Wechsler v Bowman, 285 NY 284

[1941]; Lamdin v Broadway Surface Advertising Corp., 272 NY 133 [1936]). An agent "is prohibited from

acting in any manner inconsistent with his agency or trust and is at all times bound to exercise the utmost

good faith and loyalty in the performance of his duties." (Lamdin, at 136). Therefore, in the instant action,

MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, is an agent of CAMBRIDGE for limited purposes. It can only have

those powers given to it and authorized by its principal, CAMBRIDGE. Plaintiff ONEWEST has not

submitted any documents demonstrating how CAMBRIDGE authorized MERS, as nominee for

CAMBRIDGE, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to INDYMAC, which subsequently

assigned the subject mortgage and note to plaintiff ONEWEST.

Recently, in Bank of New York v Alderazi, 28 Misc 3d at 379-380, my learned colleague,

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 13 -

Kings County Supreme Court Justice Wayne Saitta explained that: A party who claims to be the agent of

another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence

(Lippincott v East River Mill & Lumber Co., 79 Misc 559 [1913]) Page 15 and "[t]he declarations of an

alleged agent may not be shown for the purpose of proving the fact of agency." (Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v

Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25 [2d Dept 1986]; see also Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken

of Long Is. 108 AD2d 218 [2d Dept 1985]; Moore v Leaseway Transp/ Corp., 65 AD2d 697 [1st Dept

1978].) "[T]he acts of a person assuming to be the representative of another are not competent to prove

the agency in the absence of evidence tending to show the principal's knowledge of such acts or assent

to them." (Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d at 26, quoting 2 NY Jur

2d, Agency and Independent Contractors § 26). Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that

the original lender, the mortgagee America's Wholesale Lender, authorized MERS to assign the secured

debt to plaintiff. Therefore, in the instant action, plaintiff ONEWEST failed to demonstrate how MERS, as

nominee for CAMBRIDGE, had authority from CAMBRIDGE to assign the DRAYTON mortgage to

INDYMAC. The Court grants plaintiff ONEWEST leave to renew its motion for an order of reference, if

plaintiff ONEWEST can demonstrate how MERS had authority from CAMBRIDGE to assign the

DRAYTON mortgage and note to INDYMAC.

Then, plaintiff ONEWEST must address the tangled employment situation of "robo-signer" Erica A.

Johnson-Seck. She admitted in her July 9, 2010 deposition in the Machado case that she never provided

me with affidavits of her employment for the prior three years and an explanation of why she wore so-

many corporate hats in Maraj and Bethley. Further, in Deutsche Bank v Harris, Ms. Johnson-Seck

executed an affidavit of merit as Vice President of Deutsche Bank. If plaintiff renews its motion for an

order of reference, the Court must get to the bottom of Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment status and her

"robo-signing." The Court reminds plaintiff ONEWEST's counsel that Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 161 of the

Machado deposition, volunteered, at lines 4-5 to "gladly show up in his court and provide him everything

he wants." Lastly, if plaintiff ONEWEST'S counsel moves to renew its application for an order of

reference, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new filing requirement to submit, under penalties of

perjury, an affirmation that he has taken reasonable steps, including inquiring of plaintiff ONEWEST, the

lender, and reviewing all papers, to verify the accuracy of the submitted documents in support of the

instant foreclosure action. According to yesterday's Office of Court Administration press release, Chief

Judge Lippman said: We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what

we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs —

such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis. This new filing requirement will play a vital

role in ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free

before any judge is asked Page 16 to take the drastic step of foreclosure. (See Gretchen Morgenson and

Andrew Martin, Big Legal Clash on Foreclosure is Taking Shape, New York Times, Oct. 21, 2010; Andrew

Keshner, New Court Rules Says Attorneys Must Verify Foreclosure Papers, NYLJ, Oct. 21, 2010).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

- 14 -

ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to withdraw its motion for an order of

reference, for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116,

County of Kings), is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 15183/09,

is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant

action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on June 18, 2009, by plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to

foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529,

Lot 116, County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff,

ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to renew, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, its motion for an

order of reference for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot

116, County of Kings), provided that plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., submits to the Court: (1) proof of

the grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC, to its nominee,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., to assign the subject mortgage and note

to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB; and

(2) an affidavit by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., explaining:

her employment history for the past three years; why a conflict of interest does not exist in how she acted

as a Vice President of assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Vice

President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, and a Vice President of

assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. in this action; why she was a Vice President of both assignor

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in

Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President

of both assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee INDYMAC

BANK, FSB in Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and,

why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK inDeutsche Bank v

Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07); and (3) counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST

BANK, F.S.B. must comply with the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge Page 17

Jonathan Lippman on October 20, 2010, by submitting an affirmation, using the new standard Court form,

pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST

BANK, F.S.B. has personally reviewed plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents and records in the

instant action and counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. confirms the factual accuracy of plaintiff

ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s court filings and the accuracy of the notarizations in plaintiff ONEWEST

BANK, F.S.B.'s documents. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. ENTER HON. ARTHUR

M. SCHACK

J. S. C.

CATEGORY ARCHIVES: ONEWEST BANK SUED FOR ENCOURAGING FORECLOSURES

OneWest Bank Sued For Encouraging Foreclosures

Posted on February 22, 2010 by MARIO KENNY| 2 Comments

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/21/2552932….

Nineteen months after the catastrophic failure of one of Sacramento‘s top lenders, Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank, a flurry of local lawsuits alleges that the bank‘s successor – OneWest Bank – is systematically working to push home loan borrowers into foreclosure.

The allegations filed in the Eastern District of U.S. Bankruptcy Court claim that OneWest can make more money by foreclosing than by keeping borrowers in their homes. That‘s due to its so-called ―shared-loss‖ agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., at least 10 local lawsuits allege.

A video made in Fairfield and circulating widely on the Internet also alleges that OneWest stands to earn millions from taxpayers by foreclosing on borrowers as a result of its shared-loss agreement with the FDIC.

The FDIC declined to comment on the Sacramento lawsuits, but it recently denounced the video‘s ―blatantly false claims.‖ The agency told The Bee that its agreement with OneWest contains provisions to make sure the lender is taking adequate steps to modify loans.

OneWest declined to comment on either the lawsuits or the video.

The FDIC, which seized IndyMac in July 2008, sold the failed institution to Pasadena-based OneWest in March 2009.

As part of the deal, the FDIC agreed to absorb some losses from the troubled loan portfolio. That‘s after OneWest absorbs the first $2.5 billion in losses, the FDIC said.

But Sacramento bankruptcy lawyer Peter Macaluso claims the shared-loss agreement will reward OneWest for foreclosing on homes. Here‘s how, he said: The company bought IndyMac‘s troubled portfolio at a 30 percent discount. It can count on the FDIC eventually reimbursing 80 percent or more of its losses – and also can keep proceeds from the foreclosure sales.

―They‘re deliberately blowing people out in a systematic pattern,‖ said Macaluso.

He has filed eight lawsuits in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on behalf of area IndyMac borrowers who have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.

Macaluso alleges that OneWest improperly boosted his clients‘ monthly loan payments – sometimes by more than $1,000 – by doing a new escrow analysis after they had filed for bankruptcy protection. He said his clients can‘t afford the increases and are in danger of losing their homes.

On Friday, he said OneWest has since rescinded the extra payments in three cases.

Elk Grove bankruptcy attorney Mark Wolff makes similar allegations in two lawsuits in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

―We made the allegations that it‘s a systematic approach they‘ve employed, and it‘s a violation of bankruptcy code,‖ said Wolff. He said he previously filed similar actions against Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase. His clients also are still in their homes.

A third attorney, Sean Gjerde of Elk Grove, recently filed a civil suit against OneWest in Sacramento Superior Court. It alleges violations of the Truth In Lending Act, claiming that OneWest is unresponsive to attempts to modify an Elk Grove client‘s IndyMac mortgage.

―As soon as OneWest took over, the communication stopped,‖ Gjerde said. ―My client has been in default for a long time and it‘s been like heck to even get them to talk to me.‖

The local lawsuits represent another messy aftermath of IndyMac‘s implosion in July 2008, a development that added to fears of an imminent U.S. financial collapse.

IndyMac was a leading Sacramento lender, ranking 10th in loan volume during the riskiest part of the housing market: mid-2005 to mid-2007. Statistics from researcher MDA DataQuick show IndyMac made 5,312 home loans worth $1.4 billion during this period in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, Sutter and Yuba counties.

A Treasury Department performance report last week showed that OneWest has temporarily or permanently modified 25 percent of its loans that are 60 days or more late. Twelve lenders reported higher modification rates and nine reported worse rates. The report said OneWest had permanently modified 3,087 of its 112,000 delinquent loans by the end of January.