Foreclosure Hamlet

Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

ISO Signers

Hook up with others who have the same signatories transferring your home from one financial entity to another or testifying to facts of your alleged loan or testifying to owed attorneys fees or answering interrogatories, providing facts regarding the foreclosure of your home, etc, etc, etc.

The individuals named below are not accused of wrong-doing or fraudulent activity or criminal fabrication of any sort.


You need to be a member of Foreclosure Hamlet to add comments!

Join Foreclosure Hamlet

Comment by Shelley Erickson on November 14, 2015 at 1:58pm

Someone was looking for info on this 

I know the firm as stopped handling foreclosures.


Please have her send those examples, let’s take a look.


David is a partner in the firm. 


Comment by Emanuele DeStefano on November 10, 2015 at 9:44am

Does anyone have information on Barbara Nord allegedly an Assistant Secretary for MERS.  I have found interesting info from a Florida audit and would like any additional information about her robo signing.

Thank you.

Comment by victory on November 9, 2015 at 10:51pm

looking for the following:   Florida Notary Public                       Lubica V. Simon

                                     Vice President Option One Mort corp  Elizabeth Boulton

I am helping a homeowner, who lost their property back in 2010.  If you have any information on the above please email me:

Comment by victory on May 15, 2015 at 10:46pm

I am helping out my best friend who live in West Palm Beach.

Does anyone have any verification documents on BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON



email me at my other email address:

Comment by Shelley Erickson on September 18, 2014 at 9:40pm

I was just sent a list of Julie Ann Prieto notary docs on pdf I dont know how to put pdf on here, so email me at and I will send the list of them. Quite a lot came to me by a friend once I sent the emails out requesting them for you.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on September 18, 2014 at 1:59pm

Watch this look up their drivers licenses to match or find non matching signatures

Comment by James Smith on September 18, 2014 at 11:43am

Michelle, I need your email address to send documents

Comment by James Smith on September 18, 2014 at 10:45am

Michelle, I have some Julie Ann Prieto  signatures. Let me know if you need them?

Comment by ChrisNM on June 7, 2014 at 9:00pm

If the Plaintiff is RBC Bank and RBC Bank is the original lender, it is going to be very difficult to vacate the foreclosure order.  It is highly unusual in this day and age for the original lender to be the Plaintiff.  They may have sold your loan, but if the original payee on the Note comes forward... there is little one can do.  I am sorry to tell you that, but as far as I know that is the case.

I am reading a book written by Michael Lewis called Flash Boys- about high frequency trading on wall street.  RBC Bank is discussed and apparantly they did not get into the securitization of loans to the extent most banks did.  I don't know if that is the reason they are both the payee and Plaintiff in your case, but it may very well be.

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is how I see it.  Chris

Comment by victory on June 7, 2014 at 8:53pm

Plaintiff RBC Bank, but the documents signed and prepared by the law firm

Comment by ChrisNM on June 7, 2014 at 8:43pm

I believe the party which filed the Complaint would be on the lis pendens....

Comment by ChrisNM on June 7, 2014 at 8:42pm

RBC is claiming to be the holder or holder in due course.  A holder in due course is a special type of holder but one does not need to be a holder in due course to foreclose- at least as I understand the UCC.  So RBC is the payee of the note- the bank from whom you took out the loan.  Correct?  Do you know what party actually filed the foreclosure complaint?  Was it RBC.  (RBC I assume is Royal Bank of Canada). 

Your lawyer sounds like a real piece of work.  What a deadbeat....   Chris

Comment by America 2.0 on June 7, 2014 at 8:35pm
Victory, could you please clarify what shows they are not a HIDC? Thanks.
Comment by victory on June 7, 2014 at 8:29pm

Lis Pennens dated 4/2009 clearly says  "owner and holder of note"  

This is evidence they just admitted they were not the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.  big difference from holder and HIDC as I have heard.

Comment by victory on June 7, 2014 at 8:26pm

Chris, I am slowly gathering all my documents, since my former attorney was subpeona several times to return back my documents, he refuses.  I have made some progress, not fully but getting their. I looked up the VP he was a manager of another bank when these documents were executed back 4/2009

Comment by victory on June 7, 2014 at 8:22pm

Chris, the note clearly says RBC Bank, and payments were made to them.  However, I dont recall ever getting any delinquent letters from the bank.  What I got back on 2/2009, was a letter from a law firm claiming they represent the bank.  (yea right).  I then send the law firm a validation letter, they sent me copies of the mortgage document.  I had turn these documents letter that i got from them and their response to my former attorney, who refused to return back all the documents I gave him.  However, the first letter from the law firm dated 2/2009 I have the second page, lost the first page.  2nd page of the letter from law firm says pay about by such a date(this is a debt collector). Then 5/2009, i received lis pennens.  I am strongly convience that this law firm is debt collector using the banks name on the lis pennens.

One interesting discovery I made, along with the exhibits, lis pennens, they attached a document titled VERIFICATION.  however, no statement saying" under penalty of perjury", no notary, no date, vp signature.  I looked up the vp is not who he claims to be.  I then notified the State of Florida notary 3/2014,it took them two months to respond.  Does not find notary at fault.  

Comment by ChrisNM on June 7, 2014 at 8:10pm

Victory-  I wish I knew more about Florida law and what the basic minimum requirements are for an entity to foreclose.  If your note is to RBC Bank and RBC Bank was the foreclosing entity, then they would not have needed anything other than the original Note to foreclose- at least that is what the UCC requires.  I'm sure they claimed they had the note and if it was not challenged, the court would accept that.  Your loan was surely securitized, so RBC probably had sold its interest shortly after closing... but that is something that would have had to have been brought to the court's attention in the pleadings. 

So is that the case?  Is RBC named on the Note and did RBC file the Complaint for foreclosure?

Let me know.   Chris

Comment by Shelley Erickson on June 7, 2014 at 8:06pm

Lack of standing is fraud upon the court and fraud upon the court can be claimed over and over until justice is done. However they can manipulate harrassment claims and take away your rights. These attorneys know how to game the courts. Back then there was less chance to win than now. A lot of case law and good attorneys are turning the tides, but corrupted judges block justice in to many court rooms. All my personal opinion not a lawyer. 

Comment by victory on June 7, 2014 at 7:24pm

ChrisNM, you have been so helpful.  I will save your last comment.  Chris, let give you brief background. alleged loan from RBC Bank ((a.ka Centura Bank), note says RBC Bank.  Mortgage document says MERS as both mortgagee and nominee/beneficiary.  Payment were going to RBC (their was no servicer involved).  After the hearing since my attorney left me hanging their.  A certificate of title was filed on 1/2010, it says the following:   

no objection to the sale having been filed within the time allowed for filing objections, the above property was sold to RBC Bank (aka Centura Bank).  uhmm gee what happened here, and yet I was making payments to RBC Bank, bought after foreclosure they bought the title dont know what happened here.  does this make sense.

I have the lis pennens along with the attachments recorded mortage document, but the note was a copy, was never filed, as we all know it never gets filed.  their is no alterations on this copy note.  what should i look for?

After hearing the on 9/14/2009, the law firm filed a document titled "filing of original promisory note"  uhmm since when does the clerk office file original promissory note.  These documents were suppose to be cancelled and return back to me before the hearing isnt that correct?

Comment by ChrisNM on June 7, 2014 at 5:07pm

Victory-  below are some comments I pulled off the internet in regards to standing.  I believe these are Florida cases.  They talk about standing as it relates to the court having subject matter jurisdiction to decide a case.  It comes down to whether or not the Plaintiff established its right to enforce the Note you executed at the time the complaint was filed.  This often comes down to whether or not the copy of the note the bank filed with the complaint was indorsed.  If there was no indorsement on the Note, the bank did not prove standing when the complaint was filed and the Court should not have heard the case.  It should have been dismissed without prejudice. 

For Andy Engel (Schwartzwald's attorney): As a practitioner focusing on foreclosure defense what is your thoughts (to be pro-active) for those who lost their home under the “cure,” to file a 60(B)(5) motion and place the new owner, title company and mortgage company on notice?

Andy Engel says:
November 2, 2012 at 9:53 am
If the foreclosing bank relied on an after-acquired interest in the note and mortgage to establish its right to enforce the agreements, then I would certainly seek to vacate the judgment. But you need not proceed under Civ.R. 60(B) because the judgment is void. The Schwartzwald decision states that standing has to exist at the time the case is filed, and if it doesn’t exist, the jurisdiction of the common pleas court was not invoked. A court without jurisdiction cannot enter any judgment (except one dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction). A motion to vacate a void (as opposed to a voidable) judgment is not based on Civ. R. 60(B), it invokes the court’s inherent power. Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68 (1988).

If you can find the complaint they filed, look at the signature page of note that was filed as an exhibit.  If it is not indorsed- either to the bank that filed the complaint or in blank, then you may be able to have the judgment vacated.  The indorsement could also have been attached via an "allonge"- a seperate piece of paper that must be affixed to the Note.  If there is neither an indorsment on the signature page or an attached allonge, you very well might have a case.  I'm not an attorney so this is not advice, just speaking from my own experience.


Blog Posts

Servicer disclosure Statement

Posted by Danni on October 23, 2015 at 1:12pm 0 Comments

anyone recognize these signatures?

Posted by Danni on October 21, 2015 at 4:40pm 0 Comments

anyone notice these signatures in 2004

Posted by Danni on October 21, 2015 at 4:30pm 0 Comments


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Hamlet Stats

since 12/21/2009



© 2016   Created by Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service