On January 19, 2012, during a weekly membership call, a question was posed to the members asking if anyone has an Assignment of Mortgage filed in their case, or against their property, signed by Judith T. Romano. To everyone's surprise, out of 16 on the call, 8 people confirmed Romano "assigned" their Mortgages.
The Assignments were signed by Romano claiming to act in the capacity of Assistant Secretary and Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for numerous servicers and alleged lenders, as well as being Vice President of different servicers. Romano is a practicing attorney and a partner with Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg (PHS), a foreclosure mill law firm with offices in Philadelphia, Mt. Laurel and Newark, New Jersey.
An Assignment created by a law partner of a law firm that is foreclosing on the same Mortgage creates a clear conflict of interest and, in addition, gives the appearance of a financial interest in the outcome of the foreclosure for PHS and their impostor, Romano.
Imposter (according to Black's Law, 9th edition):
One who pretends to be someone else to deceive others, esp. to recceive the benefits of a negotiable instrument.
We can say with certainty that Romano did not come to work to sign these Assignments for free despite being the good-natured soul that she is. It is forbidden for any law firm and their associates to have a financial interest in the outcome of the case they filed to prosecute.
More to follow.
It is through these false Assignment of Mortgages did Romano and Phelan "create" their client's claim to the Mortgage “'together' with the Note." PHS lawyers (all of whom are officers of the court), nor MERS, were not authorized to assign Notes or Mortgages to a PHS foreclosure plaintiff.
PHS lawyers, inclusive of Romano, intend for others to rely upon these false Assignments. PHS lawyers knew the Assignments would be accepted as self-authenticating documents in court proceedings and relied upon by home owners, adversaries, the Office of Foreclosure within the Administrative Office of the Courts, chancery court judges and law clerks, county clerks, county sheriffs, property purchasers, insurers, their own clients and title insurance companies.
PHS lawyers, inclusive of Romano, knew the false assignments would become part of the official mortgage records filed with county clerks throughout the states. PHS showed reckless disregard for compliance with legal standards governing the conduct of notaries, the use of self-authenticating documents in court proceedings, and the recording of mortgage assignments.
The acts of Judith T. Romano and PHS for their clients, MERS, and the plaintiff constitute a fraud upon the court as well as common law fraud.
In their “Report and Recommendations To The Supreme Court of New Jersey Concerning False Statements and Swearing in Foreclosure Proceedings" dated November 4, 2010, Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) addressed the issues concerning false assignments:
LSNJ report, pgs. 4-5:
“Lenders no longer routinely execute or record Assignments of Mortgage when a loan is transferred because they regard it as unnecessary unless there is a default and too costly and time consuming to do in every case. … By way of example, one large mortgage servicer recently purchased 1.3 million loans from another large servicer. Even if it took one minute per assignment to execute (which itself is a stretch) it would take over ten years to execute all the resulting assignments is same were executed at the rate of 40 hours per week.” So typically at the time the lender makes a decision to foreclose it is not the record mortgagee. To correct that defect, the attorney for the foreclosing mortgagee or the servicer of the loan will create an Assignment of Mortgage for the purposes of litigation which is in turn signed by a robo-signer. Documents recorded with a public official are self executing and have special evidential status and therefore are especially pernicious. Usually the assignment purports not only to assign the mortgage but also the note or underlying obligation. The assignment of the note nearly always contradicts other documents which indicate that the note was transferred at different times and in different manners or not at all.
The assignments appear to be based on the need for them rather than to memorialize an actual assignment of an instrument. ... The signers do not identify themselves by their true title or as being an agent or employee of foreclosure related documents typical of their actual employer. Instead they hold themselves out as vice presidents... "
The following is taken from the Congressional Written Report Regarding Securitization And Fraudclosure of November 18, 2010:
E. COUNTERFEIT AND ALTERED DOCUMENTS AND NOTARY FRAUD
"Perhaps the most disturbing problem that has appeared in foreclosure cases is evidence of counterfeit or altered documents and false notarizations. To give some examples, there are cases in which multiple copies of the “true original note” are filed in the same case, with variations in the “true original note;” signatures on note allonges that have clearly been affixed to documents via Photoshop; “blue ink” notarizations that appear in blank ink; counterfeit notary seals; backdated notarizations of documents issued before the notary had his or her commission; and assignments that include the words “bogus assignee for intervening asmts, whose address is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.”
Most worrisome is evidence that these frauds might not be one-off problems, but an integral part of the foreclosure business. A price sheet from a company called DocEx that was affiliated with LPS, one of the largest servicer support firms, lists prices for various services including the “creation” of notes and mortgages. While I cannot confirm the authenticity of this price sheet or date it, it suggests that document counterfeiting is hardly exceptional in foreclosure cases."