Please Help: I would like to assemble a list of forensically verified (expert witness confirmed) FORGED PROMISSORY NOTES, especially by Wells Fargo claiming status as successor to Wachovia. We have obtained an expert witness report in New Jersey who has verified and distinguished a probable forgery in a Wachovia note now claimed as proof by Wells Fargo. I am looking for any comparable forgeries verified by expert witness analyses in other cases.
I will share all our information with anyone who will share with us any of the following (1) experts reports, (2) images of the forgery, and (3) expert curriculum vitae concerning other Wachovia/Wells Fargo Forgeries. It would especially be useful to have evidence from any bank or mortgage finance company/originator at all (any brand name) in the Middle Atlantic States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, but really from Wells Fargo and Wachovia anywhere. Please contact me here on this blog or at firstname.lastname@example.org and provide me contact information. I will pay costs of duplicating, certification, and express delivery of the documentation.
There may be a pattern of forgery which document or evidence the sloppy securitization practiced at Wachovia and Wells Fargo’s lack of concern for accuracy or honesty in proof of its status as actual holder of notes allegedly “inherited” from Wachovia.
THE FORM OF WACHOVIA PROMISSORY NOTES:
The Wachovia “note” in question (produced May 15, 2013) also had inconsistent footers and inconsistent patterns of pagination from page-to-page. I would be very interested in seeing as many samples of Wachovia Notes and Mortgages from 2004-2009 (showing footers) as I can get my hands on.
Aside from the facts concerning the forged signature, the problems are as follows:
One does not need to be a forensic document examiner or expert auditor of mortgages, commercial papers generally or promissory notes in particular to see and understand the significance of the word “REDACTED” stamped on the upper right hand corner of Page 1 of the Wachovia Bank document submitted by Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH, nor of the “Lender’s Use Only” stamp on the bottom right of that same page. These stamps both indicate even to the most casual observer that the copy tendered is both NON-ORIGINAL and ALTERED from the original.
22. “REDACTED” means nothing in the English language besides “edited” or “altered.” Yet this is “a true and correct copy of the Note from the loan file that was provided to” Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH “by representatives of Wells Fargo Bank.” REED-SMITH might as well have certified this “Note” as found on-line in Wikipedia or delivered to her by certain unidentified and unknown “Men in Black”.
23. Any indication of forgery or alteration of a note or other document renders it impossible for the claimant to such note or other document to qualify as a “holder-in-due course” under the relevant provisions of New Jersey Law:
12A:3-302. Holder in due course
a. Subject to subsection c. of this section and subsection d. of 12A:3-106, “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and [bold and Italic emphasis added]
(2) the holder took the instrument for value, in good faith, without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, without notice of any claim to the instrument described in 12A:3-306, and without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in subsection a. of 12A:3-305.
Last modified: February 13, 2012
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/12a-commercial-transactions/3-302.html, consulted and copied on-line on Sunday June 2, 2013.
24. Of course, Wells Fargo Bank has not yet offered even a scintilla of evidence that it “took the instrument for value, in good faith,….” Or “without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.”
AND IN FACT, THE SIGNATURE IS NEITHER GENUINE NOR AUTHORIZED, AND THE NOTE IS A FRAUDULENT FORGERY
25. A visual comparison of the footers show that the pages of Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH’s alleged “Note” do not belong to a single continuous series.
26. The footers on pages 1-5 of the alleged Note bear the alphanumeric designations SD253A through SD253E, in each case followed by the parenthetical (2006-09-6) while page 6, bearing what purports to be MNM’s signature, bears only the alphanumeric designation SD253 without the expected sixth letter F, followed by the parenthetical (2004-03-1).
27. The page designation on alleged note page 6 is also different, printed as “Page 6 of 6” where none of the previous pages in the Note bear this “of 6” inscription or notation.
28. Following the first parenthetical, pages 1 and 2 only bear the further bracketed parenthetical [A 02 (2006-09-6)] and then “Adjustable Pick-A-Payment” Note followed by “NJ”.
29. On page 1 this inscription is condensed, as if electronically, moved right to accommodate the inserted rectangular box “Lender’s Use Only” which does not appear on any other page but bears a bar code and the numbers “0 0 1.”
30. The footers on Alleged Note Pages 3, 4, and 5 all lack this second bracketed parenthetical entirely, and the “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” is properly centered and isolated over the “Page 3” inscription.
31. The signature page, perhaps significantly, does NOT bear the centered “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” designation above “Page 6 of 6” but it DOES contain a second bracketed parenthetical, which matches the different date identified above of (2004-03-1) by stating [W14 (2004-03-01)].
32. Finally, in regard to the footers, the First Page is also unique because, beneath the left margin-justified SE253A (2006-09-6) notation, it bears the further left margin-justified text: “A MODIFICATION TO NOTE AND RIDER TO SECURITY,” which is inconsistent with the title “Adjustable Rate mortgage Note Fixed Advantage Pick-a-Payment (sm) LOAN (MONTHLY INTEREST RATE CHANGES) at the top of the same page.
33. This “visual” analysis of the footers indicate that while pages 3, 4, and 5 come from a single pre-printed series, pages 1, 2, and 6 have either been altered or come from other pre-printed series, with page 6, the signature page, showing the most radical divergence in form and relationship to the other pages.