Saturday, March 3, 2012


Homeowners in foreclosure and/or their attorneys should carefully inspect any documents that are given to you which have been represented as copies of originals. Insist on color copies. You will not be able to discern the alterations on Black and white copies.  You will need a forensic expert to inspect your documents.
The experience described herein is not unique to the homeowner who is sharing his experience in order to help others save their homes and obtain a modicum of justice over a bank that systematically as a matter of court attempts to deny homeowners of due process because they more likely than not cannot prove they are the owner of the loan nor that they have legal standing.  The homeowner in this article has been engaged in an unnecessarily protracted legal fight as a plaintiff for four years in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case and adversarial action in the US Bankruptcy Court in California.  Chase and their attorneys have dealt with the homeowner in typical Chase fashion -- delay, withhold, delay, obfuscate, delay, obstruct.

In fact a Class Action lawsuit has been filed against Chase for similar issues.   

In late January 2012, a few days before discovery cutoff, attorneys representing  JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA provided a California homeowner by email a copy of a Deed of Trust, an Adjustable Rate Rider, a Promissory Note and a Prepayment Penalty Addendum which Chase represented to each be  a copy of the original documents held in the office of this law. The files provided to the homeowner were  digitally scanned color images of the purported original documents (Deed of Trust, Adjustable Rate Rider, Promissory Note, and Prepayment Penalty Addendum).

The appearance of such documents after nearly four years of formal legal requests by the homeowner was suspicious. The production of the documents just four days before discovery cutoff smacked of an attempt to setup a Court ambush because it allowed no time for forensic inspection. When he requested to personally meet and inspect the documents, the law firm became non responsive which added further to suspicions that the documents were possibly bogus.

The homeowner inspected the files using Adobe Reader.  He magnified the initials and signatures on the files that were purported to be his original blue ink scribbling. At between 3X and 5X Adobe Reader magnification the alterations of the documents become obvious.
The homeowner afterwards acquired the services of a forensic expert who  inspected the documents provided by Chase and determined that someone colorized the homeowner's initials and signatures using either Adobe Photoshop or other similar product to colorize black and white initials and signatures in an effort to make it seem like this was a true copy of the "Original" documents.  For what purpose -- possibly to steal a home!
The purported "Note" provided to the homeowner by Chase bears a "blank endorsement" by Cynthia Riley, Vice President, Washington Mutual Bank, FA.  The purported  "blank endorsement" by Cynthia Riley on the purported original promissory note bears no date and no signature. Rather the endorsement is a stamp with the facsimile of her alleged signature. The stamp can easily be created utilizing Adobe Photoshop. The purpose of said endorsement is that it would  allow Chase to claim possession of the promissory note so that it can foreclose under the UCC-3 in order to  demonstrate standing in bankruptcy court.

Chase's attorney informed the homeowner that the law firm had the note (original blue ink copy) in their office and that they could foreclose on that basis. A clear reflection of their intent and the motivation for their suspected fraud. This law firm has not filed these documents with the Court.  Filing manufactured or falsified documents in the US Bankruptcy Court or other courts would constitute a fraud on the court that could result in sanctions being imposed by the Court or worse. This further underscores the conclusion by this homeowner that Chase is a completely unscrupulous bank represented by lawyers of the same ilk.
"Photo Shopped" documents can easily be discerned by looking at the images at 3X and 5X using Adobe Reader.Photoshop and equivalent software permits a signature to be lifted off one black and white copy, colorized and placed on another copy pretending to be a wet ink original. You can detect this in your own documents by following what the homeowner had to do.The signature is copied and then inked using the "Magic Wand" tool in Photoshop. The shape of the signature is captured by the "Magic Wand". The signature color can then be changed to any color using the "color palette" and either the "Paint Can" or the "Color Replacement Tool". (There are many other tools as well.)

Photoshop and equivalent software permits a signature to be lifted off one black and white copy, colorized and placed on another copy pretending to be a wet ink original. You can detect this in your own documents by following what he had to do.

As Chase has produced no original documents over a period of four years for either of the homeowner's first or second mortgage and due to the above representations, the homeowner has concluded the following: 
Chase does not have the original loan documents. If they did have the originals,, Chase would have produced them in discovery long ago.  Chase has consistently refused to produce chain of title or chain of holders of the note over the period of 2008-2012.  One can surmise that the actual evidence probably indicates that Chase does not own the loan.  Let me reiterate -- Chase has produced no original documents in 4 years for either the first or the second. This homeowner is not the only litigant having this "Chase experience" in a court of law.
The forensic issue is whether the documents are "Photoshopped." It is not whether the signature looks like your signature. Just about anyone with limited Photoshop skills can easily lift a signature from a Black & White copy and colorize it. You must seek out a forensic expert with Photoshop expertise. The cost is about $600 for an opinion.

Please refer to ERNEST MICHAEL BAKENIE vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al (a Class Action, Case # SACV12-0060 JVS (MIGx) filed  January 13, 2012 in the US District Court in Central California in Santa Ana.  The plaintiff, Bakenie, alleges that Chase has been passing off fabricated documents in court rooms across California in literally thousands of cases. So you must understand that this is how Chase does business and this particular case is not unique.  That is why you are also at risk.

Link to case filing:

To fix this problem our legal statutes should require  "Blank Endorsement" should   be signed and dated by a person who has actually identified themselves. The documents used in taking someone's home from them should required to be produced upfront before a foreclosure can commence so as to allow real due process for the borrowers.
As a side bar, the use of blank endorsements on promissory notes creates a huge untraceable marketplace where drug and other criminal operations can launder vast amounts of money without government scrutiny.

  1. Are California homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure on the basis of forged or manufactured documents?
  2. Are banks perpetrating a fraud on our Courts?
  3. Are banks actually the party "trying to get a house for free"?
  4. What can we do about this?

1 comment:

  1. Can an email address be created, with an attachment capability, so that hundreds of foreclosure defendants, can send in the "Cynthia Riley" endorsement to compare signatures similar to the "Linda Green" of robo-signing fame, and then have these published in every website fighting these fraudulant, criminal and unscrupulous lenders and servicers alike?