This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Fraudclosure | Full Deposition of Patricia Arango of Marshall C Watson
BAM!
| Full Deposition of Patricia Arango of Marshall C Watson – ARANGO’S
TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OF MERSCORP PRESIDENT
Y'all remember Cheryl Samons from the now destroyed David Stern Law firm, right?
Well, here we introduce Patricia Arango of Marshall C Watson...
Below is a link to the Arango deposition and exhibits.
To help you all sort
through it all, below is a summary of some of the high points:
MS. ARANGO’S TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OF MERSCORP PRESIDENT:
On
the MERS website (as well as a Congressional website), you can find
the testimony of MERSCORP, Inc. President and CEO, R.K. Arnold. http://www.mersinc.org/files/filedownload.aspx?id=668&table=ProductFile
In this testimony before the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Mr. Arnold states:
To
be a MERS certifying officer, one must be an officer of the member
institution who is familiar with the functions to be performed, and who
has passed an examination administered by MERS.
First, Ms. Arango is obviously not an officer of the “member institution” which would be the bank:
Q. Okay. Are you now or have you ever been --
17 strike that.
18 Are you now an officer or director of
19 Countrywide Home Loans?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Have you ever been an officer or director
22 of Countrywide Home Loans?
23 A. No.
(p.
6) Note that the corporate resolution she is relying on is signed by
Arnold’s underling William Hultman, (Senior Vice President and
corporate secretary of MERS, see http://www.mersinc.org/about/exec.aspx)
which appoints employees of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. as officers of
MERS. (see Corporate Resolution, Exhibit 1 to the deposition,
attached). Note also that the appointment was as to loans shown to be
registered to Countrywide Financial Corporation. The assignment that
Ms. Arango executed, however, was from MERS, as nominee for Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. (Exhibits 4 and 7, attached).
Nor is Ms. Arango herself or her law firm a “member” of MERS:
1 Q. All right. Are you a member of MERS?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is your law firm a member of MERS?
4 A. No.
(p.
8) So her testimony contradicts Arnold’s testimony that a certifying
officer must be an officer—or even an employee—of a member
institution.
Second, Ms. Arango never took any examination to become a signing officer for MERS:
11 Q. Okay. Did you have -- did you have to take
12 any training from MERS or some other entity to qualify to
13 be an assistant secretary or agent for them?
14 A. I don't -- no, I didn't.
15 Q. How about any type of testing or
16 certification, exam, anything along those lines?
17 A. No.
(p. 10)
Clearly
this contradicts R.K. Arnold’s testimony—and even though she is the
“assistant secretary” of MERS, Arango doesn’t even know who Arnold is
and has never even heard of him. (p. 75-76). She was asked about her
specifically about Arnold’s testimony:
3 Q. If [Arnold]stated that in order to be a
4 certifying officer and sign an assignment on behalf of
5 MERS somebody needed to pass and complete an examination,
6 is that something that is familiar to you?
7 A. It's not familiar to me, no. I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. That was not something that you had
9 to do.
10 A. I did not do that.
So
we can only draw two conclusions, either: 1) R.K. Arnold testified
falsely to the House Subcommittee (or MERS only recently changed the
rules to be a certifying officer, in which case he still misled the
committee by implying that that has been the standard all along); or 2)
Ms. Arango is not an official certifying officer of MERS—which would
invalidate hundreds, if not thousands of assignments.
MS. ARANGO KNOWINGLY EXECUTED THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE HER CLIENT, THE SERVICER (WHICH IS NOT THE OWNER) OF THE NOTE:
When
asked what the MERS information indicated as to who should be the
recipient of the mortgage (i.e. who actually owned the note), Ms.
Arango said she could not remember. (p. 43) At first she testified
that the records would have indicated that Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing LP was the owner at the time (p.44), but then admitted they
were just the servicer (p. 44).
10 Q. What do you mean they're the servicer?
11 A. Well, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, I
12 executed this assignment from MERS into Countrywide Home
13 Loans Servicing LP.
14 Q. Okay. So if they're a servicer, is that
15 separate and distinct from them being the owner?
19 THE WITNESS: The servicer services the
20 loan, and you can have, obviously, different
21 owners.
* * *
9 Q. Okay. They're the servicer. Does that
10 mean they're not the owner?
11 A. They do not obtain the beneficial interest
12 in the note.
13 Q. Meaning what?
14 A. They don't get the proceeds. They receive
15 the proceeds from the borrower by virtue of their
16 payments, but obviously there's a different owner. They
17 don't own it.
(p.
44-45) She goes on to say that this conflation of the servicer and
the owner happens because the servicer collects the money on behalf of
the owner and she implies that this misperception, often by the
homeowners themselves, somehow justifies her assignment to the servicer
rather than the owner:
2 THE WITNESS: It depends on how you are
3 relating the definition of those particular words
4 because, for instance, you can, you know, quote,
5 unquote, own the mortgage with respect to
6 obtaining the proceeds, meaning the payments from
7 the borrower, and thereby, quote, unquote, own the
8 mortgage. That's many times what borrowers even
9 believe.
After
some sparring, she finally admits that the owner of the note is
Fannie Mae (p. 47), which contradicts the amended complaint that
states: “4. Plaintiff, is the holder/owner of the subject note and
mortgage.“ She then goes so far to argue that the mortgage interest
lies with both entities—the plaintiff and Fannie Mae. (p. 48)
MS. ARANGO DID NOT CHECK THE MERS RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHO MERS SAID THE OWNER WAS:
When
shown the records that were requested directly from MERS (which shows
that Fannie Mae is the owner), she admitted that she has never seen
those records, and that normally “this is not what I see.” (p. 56).
She claimed that she looks up the “investor” (the owner) on the public
MERS site, but she did not realize that the MERS did not make that
information available on its site until long after she executed this
mortgage. It cannot be overemphasized that her obvious objective is
not to determine the rightful owner of the note so that she can assign
the mortgage to that entity, but rather, to simply make her own client
the mortgagee so her client can win the case. In any other context, this would be called manufacturing evidence.
THE ASSIGNMENT WAS MODIFIED BEFORE IT WAS RECORDED, BUT AFTER IT WAS NOTARIZED:
Compare
Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 is the recorded version (which
has the handwritten words “in mortgage referenced herein”). Exhibit 7
is identical except it doesn’t have the handwriting, but rather, a
typewritten reference to an Exhibit A. My guess is that the clerk
would not record the assignment that referenced an exhibit that didn’t
exist, so someone whited that out and handwrote the correction. It
is, of course, a violation of law to change a document after it has
been notarized.
Another Checkmate Bitches...
You can check out the depo and exhibits at the bottom of the link below...
LINK - Full Deposition of Patricia Arango of Marshall C Watson with Exhibits...
4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
From a Bloomberg article:
Sounds like a square deal... for the banks!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-12/fannie-regulator-asked-by-lawma...
Just tear up all the bullshit paper and start over. No mortgages, no taxes, no FRNs, stock certificates, leins, court dockets, contracts, agreements, bills, bonds, pay or quit notices, lis pendens, writs, chits, dips and chips.
I got a house to live in, some firewood and about three weeks worth of food (ain't telling about my silver). What you got?
I'm willing to reserve judgement on how this turns out legally, but I'm inclined to start building some gallows. Say, who's got the nails?
looking at BAC price today... where's the ficking dip???
though this was a good laugh
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/aig-expects-to-repay-government-on-frid...
Didn't you get the upgrade from WFC. Upgraded the entire banking sector, which, I'm assuming, included themselves. All the banks have all the money, don't cha know?
Kind of like if we allowed athletes to vote their teams' positions in the standings. The Cubs would win the World Series every year... along with the White Sox, A's, Rangers, Cardinals, Astros, Mets, Dodgers, Marlins, Yankees, Blue Jays, Tigers, Twins, Pirates, Giants, Padres... well, you get the idea.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 reads in part, "No State shall...[pass any]... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."
It's more than a century's worth of contract law...it's the whole enchilada
Nothings too good or too sacred for the Ponzi to destroy. All hail the Ponzi.
She literally sunk them all. The only thing that could save the banks is to go to the Supreme Court fo the US. And if the usual judges side for the banks, it throws out decades if not a century of contractual law and usurps state laws in the process. In order to save a handful of bank executives from prison and financial ruin, they are allowing the US to be destroyed.
Expect More Shootings?
When Congress stops defending the Constitution...but instead defends the Bankers...
http://seenoevilspeaknoevilhearnoevil.blogspot.com/2011/01/blame-politicians.html