HEY JUDGE COX, THIS IS WHAT THE MOTION TO QUASH IS PROTECTING!
The deposition of a Former Foreclosure Mill Attorney is below but...
First some background information...
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
A Palm Beach County judge ruled in favor of law firm Shapiro & Fishman today, saying the state attorney general has no power to subpoena or investigate law firms.
Judge Jack S. Cox quashed a subpoena filed by the attorney general seeking information regarding Shapiro & Fishman’s forelcosure-related practices.
Cox said it is the Florida Bar’s responsibility to investigate law firms, not the attorney general.
“It should also be observed,” Cox noted in his ruling, “that the subpoena served by the attorney general is not only overbroad, vague, inconsistent and unduly burdensome, but it is both invasive and highly unlikely to reveal actionable conduct on the part of the Shapiro firm.”
“overbroad, vague, inconsistent and unduly burdensome”
Has anyone received that same answer from the Foreclosure Mill on their request?
“Has no power to subpoena or investigate law firms.”
Why are they trying to protect these fraudsters? If they have done nothing wrong, then why not answer the requests?
How about we do it like this then.
Florida Citizens v Shapiro & Fishman, Foreclosure Mills, et al.
You up for it? We are…
We have nothing left to lose…
Arent you a “deadbeat” yourself Mr Shapiro?
Gerald M. Shapiro of Shapiro & Fishman, CEO of LOGS Group, Faces Foreclosure
But aside from that how about we look at this from a post I did back in August…
LINK – Shapiro & Fishman Accuses McCollum of Grandstanding, Files Motion to Quash Subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court
The firm’s response came Friday in a motion to quash a subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.
Why, do you ask…
Well, I am no expert on getting subpoenaed by the Attorney General, but I do have an inquisitive mind…
Is it because Shapiro and Fishmans’ attorney, Gerald Richman of Richman Greer, is located in Palm Beach County?
Or is it because Gerald Richman of Richman Greer is so tight with PBC Chief Judge Peter Blanc they decided that would be their best venue?
Quote from the LINK – Daily Business Review…
After a call was made to Sasser’s office seeking comment, attorney Gerald Richman of Richman Greer in West Palm Beach called the Review. He said he “heard” about the article and wanted to speak in support of the judge on behalf of the American Board of Trial Advocates, which he said normally responds to what might be “unfair criticism of judges.”
When pressed about how he found out the Review was working on this article, he said Palm Beach Circuit Chief Judge Peter Blanc asked him to call in support of Sasser, who is prevented from commenting about pending cases and motions for recusal by judicial canon.
You can check out that full article here…
Never understood why they would send in an attorney that represents a foreclosure mill to defend a Judge that was being accused of favoring foreclosure mills, but who am I to question that decision…
I guess Blanc and Richman must be pretty good friends for him to call on him like that…
Anyway, it might be nothing, but my tinfoil hat has been acting up lately so one never knows.
Well it looks like my tinfoil hat is still broken…
I dunno, just sayin…
NOW FOR TODAYS BOMBSHELL
Exclusive Bombshell of Foreclosure Fraud – Full Deposition of TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA Law Office of David J Stern
“I personally did not do it because I refused to do it.”
“I wasn’t going to falsify a military document.”
“I was told that that’s fine, somebody else on your team will do it.”
This just in and it is unbelievable!
This is how they steal your home in Florida!
We are neck deep in issues today so I do not have time to go through and highlight everything, and there is a lot, but here are some snips…
FULL DEPOSITION BELOW.
TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY
THIS SHOULD BE THE BOMBSHELL THAT STOPS IT ALL IN FLORIDA
MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
3 AG # L10-3-1145
5 IN RE:
6 INVESTIGATION OF LAW OFFICES
OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.
12 DEPOSITION OF TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
16 12:11 p.m. – 1:58 p.m.
September 22, 2010
17 Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
18 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 – - -
3 Deposition taken before Kalandra Smith, Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.
6 – - -
8 TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined
10 and testified as follows:
1 Q Let’s go to the assignments of mortgage. They
2 were prepared in-house?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You’re smiling. You want to tell me about
6 A Assignments were done sometimes after the
7 final judgement was entered.
8 Q Do you know why that is?
9 A Because that’s what we were directed to do
19 Q Can you tell me the execution of the
20 assignments, how it worked?
21 A Assignments were prepared again from the
22 casesum. All of our stuff comes from the casesum. They
23 would be stamped and signed by a notary or not. Per
24 floor we had a designated spot to place them and Cheryl
25 would come once a day and sign them.
1 Q Sign them as what?
2 A As –
3 Q For the bank?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Or for MERS or whoever it was for?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Would these notaries be there watching her as
8 she signed?
9 A No.
10 Q She would just sit there and sign stacks of
12 A Correct. As far as notaries go in the firm I
13 don’t think any notary actually used their own notary
14 stamp. The team used them.
15 Q There were just stamps around?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you actually saw that?
18 A I was part of that.
19 Q You did it? Are you a notary?
20 A No, I’m not.
21 Q Did you sign as a witness?
22 A I did not. I signed as a witness on one
23 document and after that I decided that I didn’t want to
24 put my name as a witness anymore.
25 Q Tell me about the stamps. You stamped them?
1 A Yeah, I had stamps. Each team had a notary on
2 them or notaries that I was aware of. Whether they were
3 or weren’t wasn’t –
4 Q You had stamps?
5 A Correct. We would stamp them and they would
6 get signed.
7 Q Stamp them in blanks?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who would sign them?
10 A Other people on the team that could sign the
11 signature of the person or just a check on there or
13 Q Was that common practice?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that standard practice?
16 A Pretty much.
17 Q What about the witnesses?
18 A Those would be signed by juniors who were –
19 Q Standing there?
20 A Here, sign this. It has to go to Cheryl, sign
21 it. Then it would go and sit at the desk where Cheryl
22 would sign everything.
23 Q Out of view of the notary and out of view of
24 the witnesses?
25 A Correct.
1 Q Do you know who implemented this procedure?
2 A Cheryl.
3 Q Cheryl did?
4 A Um-hum.
5 Q Did anybody else sign with the firm for the
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was that?
9 A There were people that were responsible for
10 signing Cheryl’s name. Cheryl, Tammie Sweat, and Beth
11 Cerni. Those were the only three people that could sign
12 Cheryl’s name. If you ever look at assignments you’ll
13 see that they are not all the same.
14 MS. EDWARDS: What are the names again?
15 Cheryl, Tammie?
16 THE WITNESS: Tammie Sweat and Beth Cerni.
17 MS. EDWARDS: Could you spell that.
18 MS. CLARKSON: C-E-R-N-I.
19 BY MS. CLARKSON:
20 Q Did they practice Cheryl’s signature?
21 A I would assume so.
22 Q Did you ever see them?
23 A Not practicing but I’ve seen them sign it.
24 Q Did you see somebody sign Cheryl’s name?
25 A Yes.
1 Q That wasn’t Cheryl?
2 A Yes. All the time.
3 Q Did Cheryl know about this?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was it at her direction?
6 A Yes.
16 Q Did anyone quit as far as you know due to the
18 A I’m sure but they wouldn’t come right out and
19 say I quit because of the practices. I know that people
20 had left because they were uncomfortable with the things
21 that they were being asked to do, as most of us were.
22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren’t here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren’t supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody’s social security number technically you
10 can’t pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant’s social
13 security and John or Jane Doe’s name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did not do it
23 because I refused to do it. I wasn’t going to falsify a
24 military document. I was told that that’s fine,
25 somebody else on your team will do it.
1 Q What do you mean falsify a military document?
2 A Well, I’m using the main defendant’s social
3 security number on somebody else’s name, not his name.
4 John Doe and the main defendant was James, I was taking
5 James’ social security number and putting John Doe’s
6 name in there. I wasn’t but that’s what the practice
7 was. The judges started saying we’re not going to
8 consider service completed until –
9 Q There’s a miliary search?
10 A Correct.
11 Q So why wouldn’t they use the right social
12 security number for the right person?
13 A Because you don’t have a social for an NKA or
14 unknown tenant. They wouldn’t enter a final judgement
15 unless the military doc was there.
16 Q So you just used anybody’s?
17 A Correct.
9 A So what we had to do from that point, again
10 the affidavits were still split in two pages, at that
11 point we were supposed to be sending them back to the
12 banks to be signed now. The problem being that a lot of
13 times we wouldn’t get them back or executed in time for
14 the hearings. So we had what they called signature
15 pages that Tammie Sweat or someone else would have in
16 their possession. If we couldn’t get it back from the
17 bank executed in time we would just take a signature
18 page and put it on the affidavit.
19 Q What was on the signature page?
20 A The signature and notary from the bank.
21 Q Were these documents photocopied or were they
22 original documents?
23 A Some were photocopied.
24 Q How would you get that many from a bank
25 original? The bank supplied them to you.
1 A Well, what would happen would be like if I had
2 file A and that one didn’t go to hearing because there
3 was something wrong with it and file B was going to
4 hearing but it was the same bank, I would take the
5 signature page from A and give it to B.
6 Q Oh give it to another file?
7 A And just re-execute this file.
8 Q Okay. That was common practice?
9 A Yes, after Cheryl couldn’t sign.
10 Q Did Cheryl know?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Cheryl knew about all the practices because
13 she is the one who ran the office?
14 A She was the one who implemented them.
15 Q Were there any other activities or practices
16 over at David Stern’s firm that made you feel
17 uncomfortable or that you were unwilling to do?
18 A I don’t know how to answer that question.
19 It’s a loaded one.
20 Q Take your time.
21 A Yeah. Some of the things that were done there
22 just were not on the up and up.
23 Q Explain to me in as much detail as you can
24 what those things were.
25 A I don’t even know where to start with it.
Now that’s some BULLSHIT!
MUCH MORE IN THE DEPO BELOW…