LPS to be sanctioned by US Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Magner in the case of In Re Wilson

This has been the case I've been watching for a long time, beginning in early summer of 2008.

The understanding of the US Trustee has been crucial, as has his/her doggedness. As well Judge Elizabeth Magner deserves a tremendous amount of credit for first being tolerant of the US Trustee, and once she began to understand what LPS was doing also her support of the Trustee. The battle to run discovery against LPS was long and hard fought and Magner supported that. Without the efforts of either of these GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS this case would have slipped off the radar the same way thousands of others have.

I consider this to be among the most important decisions of the year and believe the effect will surpass that of the case of In Re Hill. That case involved Countrywide fabricating documents in another Chapter 13. Several reporters got hold of the transcript and reported on the "recreated letters” and within days Countrywide began a rapid descent. That culminated in Countrywide filing BK and its subsequent acquisition by Bank of America.

The words of Magner within the opinion are, to me, indicative of her willingness to sanction LPS rather severely. The sanctions are yet to be imposed and such is to be determined after another evidentiary hearing, which date has also not yet been set.

The best language is found in the latter pages. Some examples:

Page 18, last para.: “As part of its default services, LPS executed Affidavits of Default in support of Motions forRelief from Stay. LPS testified that it was just one of the services that LPS provided to clients. The affidavit is typical. It purports to be executed under oath before a notary and two (2) witnesses. It provides the name and title of the affiant and represents that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit. In fact, it is a sham.”

Page 20, para. 2: “Similarly, the affidavit identifies the mortgage and note as exhibits to the affidavit, but Ms. Goebel neither checks the attachments nor verifies that they are correct. In fact, the affidavits she signs never have any attachments when forwarded to her for execution, and she never adds any.”

Page 21, para. 2: “The submission of evidence by affidavit allows lenders to save countless hours andexpense establishing a borrower’s default without the need for testimony from a lending representative. While they can be refuted by a borrower, too often, a debtor’s offer of alternative and conflicting facts is dismissed by those who believe that a lender’s word is more credible than that of a debtor. The deference afforded the lending community has resulted in an abuse of trust.”

Page 23, bottom of page: “Q:.. So if, ...you had know[n] that there were three payments that were not posted on this account...that were in the possession of either Option One or the law firm, would you have still signed the affidavit?

A: In my opinion, yes. I was getting an affidavit from a law firm that I trusted. They’re the legal experts on the matter and Option One is in charge of their cash posting. I’m not the decision maker of, you know, should they proceed. The attorney would have that knowledge.”

Page 25, para. 2: “The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers.”

Page 26,  last sentence of para. 1: "But for the dogged determination of the UST’s office and debtors’ counsel, these issues would not come to light and countless debtors would suffer. For their efforts this Court is indebted."

Actually the ENTIRE opinion needs to be read by EVERYONE. It is available on scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52867919/In-Re-Wilson-Memorandum-Opinion-07-Apr-2011

There are other documents from In Re Wilson available on scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2703232

Abigail Field has covered the In Re Wilson case:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-estate/when-banks-outsource-foreclosures-nothing-good-happens/19836088/

HousingWire has also covered the case and recent opinion:

http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/12/tech-snafu-improper-foreclosure-affidavit-lead-to-sanctions-for-lps

Reuters has also covered the recent opinion:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/financial-regulation-foreclosures-lps-idUSN1330259220110413

Following is a cut and paste from another site with brief comments, and links:

If you find yourself reading stories about In Re Wilson at other foreclosure fraud sites OR, more importantly, at mainstream news sites, it is probably useful to accentuate a few other points that might otherwise be overlooked given Judge Magner's written decision.

Foremost amongst these is the FACT that robo-perjurer Dory Goebel had already been previously cited for filing a false affidavit in a previous U.S. Bankruptcy case, In Re Fagan: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40515880/In-Re-Fagan-Decision-Granting-Sa... [see page 3]

In other words, she was CAUGHT LYING in an affidavit before and the Lender was sanctioned.  Dory Goebel went UNPUNISHED.  And then she DID IT AGAIN.

Second, Dory Goebel was PROUD of the fact that her team was cranking out upwards of 1,000 forged and perjured documents a DAY:http://www.scribd.com/doc/40542251/FIS-Foreclosure-Solutions-the-Su... [see pages 16, 17]

Third, Dory Goebel may NOT have actually signed all of the perjured affidavits executed in her name: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40757070/Various-Signatures-of-Dory-GOEBEL

It almost impossible to overstate the potential impact of this case. LPS is involved in at least 50% of all default servicing, AND foreclosures. While it may take some time for this to “shake out” the impact is coming. It is unstoppable at this point.

Lastly here I offer the following opinion of my own:

Presently Eric Holder is the highest ranking law enforcement official in the country.

1) If Mr. Holder is not aware that false swearing, perjury and forgery are a routine part of foreclosure issues in Federal Bankruptcy Courts he needs to be fired.

2) If he is aware, has not told President Obama, and is obviously doing nothing he needs to be fired.

3) If he is aware, HAS told President Obama, and both of them are doing nothing they BOTH NEED TO BE FIRED.

I have no political affiliations so this is not merely a slam on Obama. In fact this behavior was brought to light in the case of In Re Hill in the fall of 2007. President Bush was still in office with Mukasey as Attorney General. My statements above applied to them at that time as well. 3,000,000 foreclosures are expected this year, and most of them, YES MOST OF THEM, will involve perjured affidavits and testimony AND forged and fabricated documents.

Is your government serving you? If not then who is it serving?

Draw your own conclusions.