IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS

PRECINCT NUMBER 2, PLACE 1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
PLAINTIFF
v.
JOE BRUSCUELAS, ET AL
DEFENDANT
)
)
)
) CAUSE NUMBER 6594-FD-2
)
)
)
SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES JOE BRUSCUELAS ET AL., Defendants in the above-entitled
and numbered cause, hereinafter called DefendanU Counter-Plaintiff (D/CP),
complaining of The Bank of New York, hereinafter called Plaintiffl Counter-Defendant
(P/CD), and would show as follows:
I.
Joe Brusuelas, et aI., has filed an answer in the above-entitled and numbered
cause and reserves the right to - and will in fact - amend and supplement this pleading.
Exigent circumstances surround the preparation of the instant pleading and, hence,
demanded the need for this second amended pleading. A "trial de novo" is anticipated,
as well as motions for a change of venue.
II.
P/CD has appeared through Olga Panchenko, Esq; of the Pite, Duncan law firm
in Houston, Texas by way of a verified pleading dated February 27,2012.
III.
D/CP files this counterclaim seeking $9,000.00 for wrongful eviction damages, as
follows:
(1) In order to have standing as a landlord, the burden of "Superior Right of Title"
must be met (i.e., ownership). The Bank of New York is unable to met said burden.
Also, The Bank of New York has yet to provide proof that it is compliance with The
Bank of New York's Pooling and Services Agreement ("PSA") since this loan is now
owned by a securitized trust i.e., "CWABS, Inc". U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rules (The "SEC") provide, in relevant part that, certain securitized trusts
making asset transfers and exchanges, all conditions precedent must be filed of record.
It follows then, that this same procedure must be in evidence before a foreclosure (of
trust assets, i.e., a mortgage back security) can take place, and eviction be performed;
(2) The underlying foreclosure performed by Bank of America is invalid, irregular or
even illegal because a proper chain of title was never filed of record in the Ector County
Real Property Records;
(3) Bank of America has not shown that this foreclosure is in compliance with those
certain new MERS compliance regulations that became effective and mandatory (i.e.,
law) on March 1,2012;
(4) The Assignment of the Deed of Trust ostensibly prepared and filed on November 4,
2011 in Ector County appears to contain "robosigned" signatures and questionable
notary executions. Robosigning is widely frowned upon in the mortgage/ foreclosure
industry as illegal. Robosigning is currently the subject of criminal sanctions and
significant civil litigation settlements across the United States;
(5) The Brusuelas currently qualify for Bank of America's newly announced "Tenant
Lease-to-Purchase" program. But they have yet to be counseled for same although a
loan modification application has been pending for quite some time. In point of fact, the
Bruscuelas have sought intervention of the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") in this regard and have conveyed the
very same concerns to that office. Bank of America's refusal to offer such relief must
therefore been "racially based" (the Bruscuelas are Hispanic);
(6) Counsel for Bank of America, Olga Panchencko, affixed her signatures to all of the
"FED"-related documents. As such she is attesting to her personal knowledge of the
veracity of all of the facts contained therein as "true and correct". Accordingly, Ms.
Panchencko needs to be present for any hearings in order for counsel and this court to
determine whether her assertions are, indeed, "true and correct". In consideration and
contemplating the considerations raised herein above, the State Bar of Texas requires
attorneys adhere to these guidelines. Running afoul may subject an attorney to
discipline for perpetrating a "fraud upon the court";
(7) This last consideration is of particular importance since Ms. Panchencko has
caused certain legal pleadings to be placed within the stream of commence of the
United States (US Postal Service). The general and pedestrian understanding of "mail
fraud" is the use of the instruments of the United States Government to knowingly or
negligently commit acts adverse to another party to their detriment (see "6" above). This
may have occurred in this case. If, in fact, the actions described hereinabove occurred,
they will have to be reported to the appropriate authorities with the appropriate
jurisdiction;
(7) Accordingly, counsel for the Brusuelas asks this court this to order and require the
personal appearance of attorney Panchencko at the hearing set for March 30, 2012.
Precedent from this court for this type of ruling exists as this court has previously
denied a request for counsel for the Bruscuelas to appear telephonically. Notions of
fairness and justice demand that all counsel be treated equally, in light of the nature of
the court pleadings;
(8) Last, counsel asks this court enter an interim order for $1,750.00 attorney fees.
IV.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, D/CP prays that on final trial and
hearing that he have judgment in accordance with the matters and facts set forth in this
Action and that he have such other and further relief, general and special, legal and
equitable, to which he may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHA 0 A. ROMAN, ES
SBN 00789595
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 7902
915351-2679 (Telephone)
915-351-6754 (Facsimile)
rromanattorney @yahoo.com
(
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
forwarded to the attention of opposing counsel, Olga Panchenko, Esq., to 4375 Jutland
Drive, Suite 200; P.O. Box 17934, San Diego, California, 92177-0934 by way of U.S (l
Postal Service Regular Mail, fax transmission and electronic t smiss' n on this 3!.. "
day of March, 2012.
Print
SUbject: 2417 East 21st, Odessa, Texas 79761// Brusuelas
From: Richard Roman (rromanattorney@yahoo.com)
To: crystalcooper@prommise.com;
....................................
Cc: ospanchenko@piteduncan.com;
Date: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:10 PM
Page 1 of 1
Crystal:
Thanks for talking to me today.
Attached are as follows: (1) Confirmation from the CFPB that my clients are disputing denial
of a loan modification (2) A copy of an email I sent to Robertson/ Anschutz attorneys disputing
that the foreclosure they performed for Bank of America is valid due to MERS noncompliance
issues, and invalid assignment of Deed of Trust questions (see pages 4, 5 and 18).
My clients, the Brusuelas, simply desire a loan modification so they can stay in thier
house and make thier adjusted payments to the bank.
Please advise. Otherwise, of course, we will have to file legal pleadings to contest the
eviction.
Richard A. Roman, Esq.
Former Judge of the 346th District Court
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 79902
(915) 351-2679
(915) 351-6754 fax
e-mail: rromanattorney@yahoo.com
http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=I&.rand=889225240&action=showLetter&b...1/30/2012
2011-12-08 11:33 Joe Brusuelas 432-272-3317 9155331364 P 2/3
RUlli W, GARNER
rgarner@radocs.vom
Yvette MBrusuelas
2417 E21st St
Odessa, TX 797611702
ROBERTSON I ANSCHUTZ
AnQRNEVsATLAw
10333 Richmond Avenue, SuilC 550
Iloum,", T"""" 11042
TF.LEPHONE (713)244-1390
TELECOpy (71)M8PO)
November 14, 2011
Loan No, 167640851
MIN No.: 100015700080798024
SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND
BY REGULAR MAIL
Re: Notice offoreelosure sale on Tuesday, December 06, 2011, by Shelley Nail andlor Lanelle Lyneb
andiorJobnieEadsandiorNeldaSandefer,SubstituteTrusteeofpropertydescribedinDeed of Trust
dated Apr" 26, 2007, executed by Joe C Brusuelas, and, and Yvette M Brusuelas and recorded
in/under Document No. 00006793, Volume 2130, Page 541, Official Public Records, Ector County,
Texas, and securingthe obligations therein described(theObligations) payableto Countrywide Home
Loans,lnc..
Dear Yvette MBrusuelas:
This leller and the accompanying copy of the Notice of Sale is being sent to you as a debtor un the
indebtedness described in the enclosed notice. Default has occurred in the payment of the indebtedness. Our fum
has been employed by The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for The Benefit
of The Certllicatcbolders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed CertiReates, Series 2007-9, the noteholder, to
represent it in coUecting the indebtedness owed by you and secured by the referenced Deed ofTrust. The maturity
of the atbresaid Note has been accelerated am! demand hereby made for paymelll ofthe balance ofaU sums now
due and owing on said Note.
[amenclosing acopyofthe Notice ofForeclosure Sale, which is being postedon the public notice boardofthe Ector
County Courthouse and in accordance with the provisions ofthe Deed of'I'mst. VOII are buonned that the public
auction ofthe property described in the notice is scheduled for Tuesday, December 06, 2011, between the hours of
10:00 A,M. and 4:00 P.M, at the Ector County Courthouse. The sale shall begin no earlierthan 10:00 A.M. or no
later than three hours thereafter. The sale will be held in the area designated by the Commissioner's Court of Eclor
County, Texas. pursuant to 51,002 ofthe Texas Property Code as the placewhere foreclosure sales are totake place
(ifno such place is so designated, the sale will take plaee in the area where this Notice ofSubstilUte Trustee's Sale
is posted).
As of this date, 5105,732.45 in principal, plus all unpaid accrued interest and late fe.. thereon, is due and owed.
Interest shall continue to accrue on the matured unpaid principal in accordance wi!h the terms of !he nute until thi.'
Rt\O)09781 _l\eceILtl'.OO,for. Rev, 07/0512011
2011-12-08 11 :33
Joe Brusuelas 432-272-3317 9155331364
P 3/3
debt is paid. Additionally. the Note and Deed ofTrust provide forrcimbursement to the noteholder ofits reasonable
attomey's fees and expenses incurred in collecting this debt. You may contact this office at the letterhead addr... to
obtain a complete st1itement ofthe balance owed on your debito the noteholder and to arrange payment ofthis debt.
If you have bcen disc1Jarged from a bankruptcy involving the subject property, then any demand for payment or
reterenee to personal liability docs not apply to you,
You may have the right 10 reinstate this loan. You will be able to prevent this foreclosure by paying the noteholder
before the forcclosure sale the total amount now owed that is secured by the referenced Deed of T r u s ~ plus the
additional interest that accrues to the date of payment, late fees and all attorney's fces incUlTed by the noteholder in
collecting this indebtedness. You may contact the undersigned about the balance owed on the indebtedness.
This fum is attempting to collect a debt. You are notified that any information you give me will be used in me
collection of the debt owed the notcholder. The dcbt is owed to the Creditor. Unless you, within thirty days after
reccipt ofmis Notice, dispute the validity ofthe debt, or any portion o'ereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by
this fum. (fyou notiJYthis finnin writing wimin the thirty day period that the d e b ~ or any portion thereof, is disputed,
this fum will obtain verifieation ofthe debt and a copy ofsuch verification will be mailed to you by this fum, Upon
your written request within that same thirty day period, this fum will provide you with the name and address of the
original Creditor, if different from the current Creditor. HOWEVER, BE ADVISED THAT DURING THE
THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THIS FIRM WlLL NOT DELAY OR CEASE PROCEEDING WITH THE
NONJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE AS SCHEDULED IN THE ENCLOSED NOTICE, UNLESS
PROHIBITED BY Al'PLICABLE LAW.
ASSERT AND PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES. IF YOU ARE OR YOUR SPOUSE IS SERVINGON ACTIVE MIUTARY DUTY,
INCLUDING ACTIVE MILITARY DUfX AS A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD OR
TIlE NATIONAL GUARD OF ANOTHER STATE OR AS A MEMBER OF A RESERVE
COMPONENT OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, PLEASE SEND WRITTEN
NOTICE OF THE ACTIVE DUTV MlLITARV SERVICE TOTHE SENDER OF THIS NOTICE
IMMEDIATELY.
ffyou have any questions, please contact me.
Sinccl\';ly)
Robertson & Anschutz
10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 550
Houston_ TX 77042
Ruth W_Garner
Enclosure:
C"py of Notice ofForeclosure Sale
RAOJ09187 - AcceIUr-OO.for Rev. 071051201 I
Print
Subj'ect: Re: Yvette Brusuelas/2417 East 21st SI., Odessa, Texas 79761-17021 Loan# 16764085111
MIN#100015700080798024
From: Richard Roman (rromanattorney@yahoo.com)
To: rgarner@radocs.com;
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:40 AM
Ms. Garner:
Page lof2
As you know I represent these homeowners who have seen their financial condition improve
after some setbacks. We are contesting the validity of the foreclosure performed. I am trying to
secure some relief for my clients before seeking court intervention.
MERS is indicated in the chain of title as a "nominee" for Lender Countrywide. Your client,
presumably is current mortgage servicer, Bank of America.
Accordingly, please provide me with proof that your client timely implemented (and complied
with) the acc's newly mandated "MERS Quality Assurance Plan" data reconciliation
program. Your client should have this data on hand since it was used to process this
foreclosure.
Thank you.
Richard A. Roman, Esq.
Former Judge of the 346th District Court
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 79902
(915) 351-2679
(915) 351-6754 fax
e-mail: rromanattorney@yahoo.com
From: Ruth Garner <rgarner@radocs.com>
To: 'Richard Roman' <rromanattorney@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 9:44 AM
SUbject: RE: Yvette Brusuelas/2417 East 21st SI., Odessa, Texas 79761-17021 Loan# 16764085111
MIN#100015700080798024
Mr. Roman I will pUll our file and email you the information.
Ruth W. Garner
Attorney at Law
Robertson:Anschutz
10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 550
Houston, Texas 77042-4142
Voice: (713) 980-9500
Facsimile: (713) 980-9565
Email: rgarner@radocs.com
Web: http://www.radocs.com
http://us.mg4.mai1.yahoo.comldc/launch?.gx=I&.rand=889225240&action=showLetter&b...l/10/2012
Print Page 2 of2
*** **** ** ****** ****Internet Email Confidentiality Footer** ********** *******
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney - client privilege. If you are
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-maHto the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this e-mail in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error please destroy it and immediately notify Ruth W. Garner at Robertson &
Anschutz by return e-mail or by calling (713) 980-9500. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying
us.
From: Richard Roman [mailto:rromanattorney@yahoo.com]
sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Ruth Garner
Subject: Yvette Brusuelasl 2417 East 21st St. , Odessa, Texas 79761-17021 Loan# 1676408511/
MIN#100015700080798024
Dear Ms. Garner:
I have been consulted by Ms. Brusuelas regarding the foreclosure by Bank of New York
Mellon of their house on Odessa, Texas this week.
Please send me copies of the file-stamped assignments of the Deed of Trust originating
from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. as well as the Trustee's Deed or Substitute Trustee's
Deed.
Richard A. Roman, Esq.
Former Judge of the 346th District Court
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 79902
(915) 351-2679
(915) 351-6754 fax
e-mail: rromanattorney@yahoo.com
http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=I&.rand=889225240&action=showLetter&b...I/I0/2012
2011-00015678 Electronically Recorded OPR
Filed: Il/04i201112:31:39PM Pages: 3
Linda Haney, County Clerk - Ector County. Texas
RETURN TO:
Robertson &
10333 Richmond Avenue. Suile 550
Houston. TX 77042
_____________.l(SpaccAbow:ThG L*, '''or Rding 0aW,,- _
ASSIGNMENT
THE STATEOFTEXAS
COUNTV OF Ector
MOrlcace Electronic Reclolratioll Syslems, Ille whose address is P.O. 80. 21126, Fllll!, Mlcblgall
48501-2026, ("Assignor"), for a valuable consideration to it in hand paid by The Ballk of New Vert< Mellon fb
The Ballkof New Vork as Trustee for The Benefit oCThe Certllkateholders of the CWAus, Inc.,
Asset-Backed Certificates. Sel'ies clo Bankof America, N.A., whose address is PO 80. 650070,
Dallas, TX 75265-00,., ("Assignee). the receipt and sufficienq ofwhich is hereby acknowledged. does hereby
trllnsfer. convey and assign 10 Assignee that one certain promissoty note in the original principal sum of
$102,115.00 dated April 26, 2007, executed by Joe C Brusudas and Vvette M Brusuelas payable to the order
of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., secured by a Deed oCTrust executed by Joe C Brusue!as, and, and Vvette
M Brusoelas oreven date lhet'ewith to R_nTrost Company, N.A., Trustee, flied for record in DoaI_t No.
00006793, Volume 2130, Page 541 oflhe OffICial Public Records or Real Properly of Ector County, Texas.
covering the following described propeny:
LOT 13, BLOCK 85, CRESCENT PARK ADDITION, 4TH FlLlNG, AN ADDITION
TOTHE CITVOFODESSA, ECTORCOUNTV, TEXAS, ACCORDING TOTHE
MAP OR PLAT OF RECORD IN VOLUME 4, PAGE 27, PLAT Rt:CORDS, ECTOR
COUNTV, TEXAS
reference 10 which Deed ofTruSl is het'e made ror all purposes; and Assignor does hereby transfer. convey and
assign 10 Assignee all liens. rights. equities and remedies held by Assignor, securing the payment ofsaid note.
logether with ell of Assignor's rights. title, interest and claims in and to aforesaid properly_
RA0309787 -Assignment.ro<. Re<. 09Q.W200?
2011-00015678 11/04/201112:31 :39 PM Page 2 of 3
Mortllage E1edrenlc Registration SYSleIm, Inc.
BY:--!:C
E
?", - _
CacmaRo.J
Name: -
Title: _
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THESTATEOF
V
t!"

On Od,2'/' H>11.loeforeme, ...... .....
- (i;.e;;;r.;;;eandtiiiCOi'
Cecilia Rodriguez
Personallyappeared _
Who proved to me on the basis ofSIIlisfactory evidence 10 be the personJ-1whose to tile
within insnumenl and acknowledged 10 me executed die same authorized
eapacity():Kl. and that by sillnaturon the instrumenl the or the enlity upon behalfof
which the personWacted, executed the instrument.
IA)A'/ /
I certil)! under PENALTY OF PERJURY under Ihe laws ofthe Slate of that the foregoing
paragrnph is true and correct.
WimessmYh:;O:;b
Signature J (Seal). $ J!l f'rl"J,.".."I'.2CL,,1
This Ins!rUmenl Prepared By: I{obertson '" Anschutz, 10333 Rkbmol1d Avenue, Suite 550, Houstoa, TX
77042
RA0309787 . A$Sil\nmenl.for- Re\!. 09'29/2009
201100015678 11f04/201112:31:39PM Page30f3
STATE Of TEXAS
COUNTY OF ECTOR
I hereby certify that this instrument was filed on the date and time stamped
hereon by me and was duly recorded under the document number as
stamped hereon in the Official Public Records of Ector Cou y, Texas.
'___1 inda Haney, Count) .Icrk
Ector County, Tcxas
ANY PROVISION CONTAINED ,'< ANY IlOClJMENT WHICH RESTRJCTS TilE SIILF., RENTAL. OR USE OF
THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED THEREIN BECAUSE OF RACE OR COLOR IS I1WALlD UNDFR
FEDERAL LAW AND IS UNEl\FORCEAIlLE.
Returned To: ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ
10333 AVE SUITE 550
HOUSTON, TX 77042
OFfln: OF At :Dn
HEGIO:,< \"I
FORT WORTH, TX OF IU:VU:W
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
OffiCII of InspeclorGeneral, RegIon VI
819 Taylor Street, Suite 13A09
Fo<lWorlh. TX 76102
(817) 978-9309 FAX (817) 9789316
hllp-fA""", b"!QiS S'!V
010 F",,,dilo,];,,,,
//s;glled//
FROM: Gerald R. Kirkland, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 6AGA
March 12, 2012
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM NO.
2012FW-1802
Craig Clemmensen, Director, Departmental Enforcement Center, eACS
Charles S. Coulter, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, HU FOR,
INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSlNG AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF
SUBJECT: Bank of America Corporation
Foreclosilre and Claims Process Review
Charlotte,Ne
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
rf\'?
-+..
l-
, .

1
N
Bank of America Corporation
Foreclosure and Claims Process Review
Charlotte, NC
As part of the Office ofInspector General's (GIG) nationwide effort to review the foreclosure
practices of the five largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage servicers (Bank of
America. Wells Fargo Bank. CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase. and Ally Financial. Incorporated).
we reviewed Bank of America's foreclosure and claims processes. In addition to this
memorandum, OIG issued separate memorandums for each ofthe other four reviews. I GIG also
plans to issue a summary memorandum reporting the results of all five memorandums. GIG
perfonned these reviews due to reported aIlegations made in the fall 0(2010 that national
mortgage servicers were engaged in widespread questionable foreclosure practices involving the
use of foreclosure "mills" and a practice known as "robosigning,,2 of sworn documents in
thousands offoreclosures throughout the United States.
3
Bank of America is a supervised FHA direct endorsement lender that can originate, sponsor. and
service FHA-insured loans. During Federal fiscal years 2009 and 2010. it submitted 36.095
FHA claims totaling $5 billion.
4
Bank of America acquired Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing, LP, in 2008 and processed claims using Cotmtrywide's FHA servicing identification
See memorandums 2012-AT-IBOI, 2012-KC-IBOI, 20IleH-IBOI, and 2012-PH-1801
We have defined the term "robosigning" as the practice ofan employee or agent of the servicer signing
documents automatically without a due diligence review or verification of the facts
With respect to foreclosure procedures. there are three variations: those States that require a completejudk'al
proceeding, which are referred to as "thejudicial jurisdictions;" those that do not require ajudicial proceeding:
and those that are a hybrid. For purposes of these reviews, V>"C determined that there were 23 judicial States and
Jurisdictions.
Properties located in judicial foreclosure States and jurisdictions accounted for $1.3 billion in claims (26 percent
of the claims). Properties located in nonjudicial foreclosure States and jurisdictions accounted for $3.7 billion
in claims (74 percent ofthe claims). These amollnts include all categories of FHA claims.
ME:\IOH..\\"I)DI \:0. 2UI2-1-"W-1802 .\I..\HCII 12,2012

Obtained and reviewed available Bank of America written policies and procedures
regarding its foreclosure process.
9
Obtained and examined relevant reviews of Bank of America's servicing and foreclosure
processes.
Obtained and examined the excerpts of personnel documents that Bank ofAmerica
provided for selected employees.
Obtained and reviewed various COUIt documents related to the foreclosure practices of
Bank ofAmerica and law firms that conducted work on its behalf.
IntelViewed Bank of America management and staff, including those involved in the
document execution, notary, foreclosure, and claims processes.
Worked with DOJ to issue 35 ClDs 10 to compel testimony.
Attended testimonies given by 17 individuals pursuant to eills issued by DOL Our audit
and legal staff met with DOJ attorneys and provided information, analyses, and relevant
documentation to prepare for the em testimony proceedings.
Coordinated with Bank of America's legal counsel, our Office of Legal Counsel, and
DOJ attorneys from its Washington, DC, Civil Division Fraud Section and the Northern
District of Texas.
Identified and reviewed a statistical sample of 118 Bank of America FHA claims
processed by HUD during the review period. The sample universe included 32,699
claims records from HUD's Single Family Data Warehouse associated with Bank of
America and affiliated entities. We randomly selected an attribute sample using a
presumed eITor rate of 10 percent, a desired precision range of I0 percent (+/- 5 percent),
and a desired confidence level of90 percent. The sample did not include claims
processed in the names ofCotllltrywide or Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. However, 100 of
the 118 claims in our sample were previously held by Countrywide. 11
Reviewed FHA claims and related documents for the 118 claims ill our sample.
Obtained and analyzed FHA claims data from both Bank of America and HUD.
Obtained and analyzed Bank of America shipping logs 12 that identified documents signed
alld notarized during the review period and identified the atlomey who prepared the
document. However, as described in the following: section, the data were incomplete.
Issned two Inspector General administrative snbpoenas for documents and records.
Analyzed data for Bank of America FHA claims in the 23 judicial foreclosure States and
jurisdictions.

From the beginning of our review in October 2010, Bank of America limited our access to
employees and information. After attempting to conduct intelViews within Bank of America's
established protocols without success, the U. S. Department oflustice (DOJ) assisted us by
obtaining testimony through civil investigative demands (CID).6 Because we identified potential
False Claims Act? violations, in Febmary 201 I, we provided DOJ with our analyses and
preliminary conclusions as to whether Bank ofAmerica engaged in the alIeged foreclosure
practices.
DOl used our review and analysis in negotiating a settlement agreement with Bank of America.
On February 9, 2012, DOJ and 49 State attorneys general announced a proposed settlement of
$25 billion with Bank of America and fOUf other mortgage selVicers for their reported violations
offoreclosure requirements. As part of the proposed settlement agreement, each of the five
selVicers will pay a portion ofthe settlement to the United States and must undertake certain
consumer relief activities. The proposed settlement agreement described tentative credits that
each mortgage selVicer would receive for modifying loans, including principal reduction and
refinancing, and established a monitoring committeeS and a monitor to ensure compliance with
agreed-upon selVicing standards and the consumer relief provisions. Once the final settlement
agreement has been approved by the court, OIG will issue a separate summary memorandum
detailing each of the five selVicers' allocated share of payment due as a result ofthe settlement
agreement.
Our objective was to determine whether Bank ofAmerica complied with applicable foreclosure
procedures when processing foreclosures on FHA-insured loans.
number during the review period. S Approximately 90 percent of its claims during the review
period, totaling more than $4.5 billion, were for loans previously selViced by Countrywide.
In early October 2010, Bank of America stated that it would halt judicial foreclosures while it
reviewed its policies and procedures. On October 18, 2010, it issued a press release reporting
that it had completed its review ofjudicial foreclosures and while it had identified no problems,
it would resubmit 102,000 affidavits injudicial foreclosure cases that had not yet gone to
judgment. On October 22, 2010, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) issued a notice of violation informing Bank of America that it was considering
administrative actions and civil money penalties based on findings identified in its July 2010
selVicing review.
METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
To accomplish our review objective, we
Obtained an understanding of relevant legislation, program guidance, and criteria related
to FHA single-family mortgage insurance.
October 1, 2OOS, through September 30, 2010
001 conducted the em proceedings in Fort Worth. lXand Washington, DC, between February 28 and
September 20. 2011.
31 U.S,C. 3129 ef.seq.
Comprised ofrepresentatives of the Slate attorneys general, DOJ, and HUD
2
Allhough we repeatedly requested policies and procedures in effoct during the entire review period, Bank of
America would provide only those that generally be<:<lme effective between May and October 2010.
'0 Under 31 u.s-e. 3733 et.seq., eIDs can be served on a person 10 give oral testimony whenever the Attorney
General has reason to believe thaI the person may be in control ofinformatioll relevam to.a false claim
investigation.
11 In August 2009, the Government National Mortgage Association hired Bank of America 10 service roughly S2S
billion in FHA receivables it seized from the firm Taylor, Bean & Whilaker. Our review incorporated loans
previously assigned to Taylor. Bean & Whitaker only if Bank of America filed FHA claims in its own name.
n Bank of America's shipping logs included FHA and non-FHA foroclosure documents, While Bank of America
had separate teams that handled FHA and non-FHA foroclosures. it could not explain material differences in the
processing ofthe foreclosures, and its shipping logs did not distinguish between FHA and non-FHA
foreclosures. Bank of America provided incomplete data, which impeded identification ofall amants, notaries,
and attorneys and the complete volume ofdocuments.
3
RESULTS OF REVIEW
Bank ofAmerica did not establish effective control over its foreclosure process. This failure
peonitted a control environment in which
Further, Bank of America provided FHA insurance claims data for only two of its five servicing
identification numbers. In another inslance, it provided dala that identified signers, notaries, and
attorneys for each claim for only one-third of its FHA claims records. These omissions impaired
our review because they prevented us from measuring the complete impact of Bank of America's
foreclosure practices.
In an effort to mitigate the scope limitation, 001 issued CIDs to Bank of America and 34 current
and fooner employees to compel testimony. Of those, I corporate representative and 16 current
and fonner employees gave sworn testimony about their knowledge concerning Bank of
America's operation of and/or reliance IIpon so-called foreclosure mills or robosigners to process
foreclosures. In addition, DOJ facilitated discussions regarding Bank ofAmerica's response 10
our Inspector General administrative subpoenas.
Affiants t4 routinely signed foreclosure documents, including affidavits, certifying that
they had personal knowledge of the facts when they did not. Specifically,-affiants
signed large volumes offoreclosure documents without reviewing the supporting
documentation referenced iII them. They also consistently failed to verifY the
accuracy of the foreclosure documents they signed.
Notaries public routinely notarized documents without witnessing affiant signatures.
They also failed to kcep required records of the documents they notarized.
It may have allowed attorneys to improperly prepare documents and misrepresent the
work they perfonned.
Review of I I8 FHA claim files showed that Bank of America did not consistently retain legal
documents supporting the foreclosure. Analysis ofthe mathematical accuracy of seven affidavits
containing judgment figures showed inconsistent per diem interest calculations and discrepancies
in accrued interest totals. Also, in one instance, it conveyed a property to HUD with the
incorrect legal description. This flawed control environment resulted in Bank of America filing
improper legal documents. thereby misrepresenting its claims to HUD and may have exposed it
to liability under the False Claims Act.
--

Our review generally covered Bank of America's foreclosure and claims processes for its FHA
claims initially processed by HUD between October 1,2008, and September 30, 2010, including
its proccdtlIes for signing and notarizing swomjudgment affidavits. The review included botll
judicial and nonjudicial foreclosure Stales and jurisdictions, which provided a comprehensive
overview ofBank of America's practices and compliance wilh requirements. Il We expanded the
scope as needed to accomplish our objective. We initiated our review on October 15, 2010, and
performed onsite work at Bank of America's offices in Fort Worth, Plano, and Addison, TX, and
Simi Valley, CA, between October 2010 and January 2011.
DIG also issued memorandums reporting the results of the reviews offour other servicers. The
results reported in the five OIG memorandums differ due to various factors. These factors
include (1) the level of infonnation made available to the auditors at the time ofthe onsite
reviews or that was obtained later through subpoenas or ClDs; (2) variances between review
procedures used, including the analysis ofthe data, that were goveOled in part by the amount and
types of infonnation obtained; (3) differences between the foreclosure procedures used by the
servicers; and (4) scope limitations imposed by some servicers.
Scope Limitation
Our review was significantly hindered by Bank of America's reluctance to allow LIS to interview
employees. When interviews were penllitted, the presence or involvement of attomeys limited
the effectiveness ofthose interviews. On a number ofoccasions, Bank of America's attorneys
refused to allow employees to answer questions, stopped them in the middle of clarifying
infonnalion already provided, or counseled them in private before allowing them to provide a
response. Further, Bank of America would not pennit an effective walkthrough of its document
execution process that would have facilitated an of its process.
During Ihe course of our review and the drafting of this memorandum, Bank of America was
actively engaged in negotiations with DO} in an attempt to resolve potential claims under the
False Claims Act or other statutes for the conduct we were reviewing. Accordingly,OIG
detcnnined that our work product was privileged and not releasable to Bank ofAmerica for any
purpose, including the solicitation ofwrilten comments on our findings from Bank of America.
For this same reason, we did not provide Bank ofAmerica with a copy of the draft
memorandum. Both DOJ and HUD concurred with our detennination that the work product was
privileged.
In addition, we issued Inspector General administrative subpoenas because Bank of America did
not provide infomlation and data in a timely manner or a point of contact who could explain and
clarifY data. However, the infom13tion and data provided in response to our subpoenas were not
complete. For instance, Bank of America provided only excerpts ofsubpoenaed personnel files,
did not provide complete foreclosure documents for the items illihe sample, provided conflicting
informalion regarding who its affiants were, and could not identifY all authorized notaries. As a
result, it was not l)()ssible to know how much infonnation Bank of America omitted that was
relevant to our review. For example, allhough several employees described Bank of America's
foreclosure process, it was not until ils employees provided sworn testimony that they disclosed
that personnel in India conducted the critical foreclosure function ofverifyingjudgnlent figures.
l! Analysis of potential False Claims Act liability was limited 10 claims filed in judicial States and jurisdiClions.
4
Questionable Affidavit and Foreclosure Document Processes
C-
Bank of America failed to follow HUD requirements 16 for properties it foreclosed IIpon in
judicial foreclosure States and jurisdictions. These provisions required Bank of America to
obtain and convey to the Secretary ofl-IUD good and marketable title to properties. Bank of
America may have conveyed flawed or improper titles to HUD because it did not establish a
H An affiant is a person who signs an affidavit and attests to its truthfulness before II notary public
IS On July 11.2011. v..e referred the apparent notary violations to 'the Texas Secretary of State.
16 24 C.F.R. 203.366(a) and HOD Handbook 4330.4, paragraphs 2-6 and 223
5
,-
OI01:
d
"S
010<:: lIny
OlOZ Inc
0101: un{
0101: key-!
O!O<::Jdy

OlOZ q;lj
I
0101: uee
"
"':
600Z:laa
600<:AON
6001:1"0
600Z
da
S
6001: S'ny
600<: Inr
600Z une
6OOz.(ew
,
600Z J dy
!
600,
600<: qall

600'(; uer
.. 800Z:mQ

-
800Z AON
, 800<: I:lO
Q
-

I-
8 8

!

, o.

fi
'"
fi

"
Bank of America's foreclosure process during the review period did not ensure that it properly
executed foreclosure documents before submitting them to courts or ensure that it conveyed
good and marketable title to HUD.
Did Nol Wilness Signatures or Maintain Required Records
Bank of America did not establish a control environment that ensured that its notaries met their
responsibilities under State laws that required them to witness affiants' signatures 011 documents
they notarized.
22
Bank ofAmerica employed notaries
2l
who notarized signatures on foreclosure
documents, but it could not provide a complete list ofthese employees. Our sample included
documents with notary stamps from Texas and California. Both States required the notary to
authenticate the signer's signature and maintain a notary log book detailing specific information,
such as the name of the signer, document notarized, and date.
24
Employees stated that affiants did not routinely sign documents in front ofa notary. There was
no indication that Bank of America required them to do so. If a notary did not witness the
signature, the notarization ofthe document was improper. Two employees specifically testified
that they raised concerns about the notary process to management, but management told them to
continue the process. In cm testimony, one of the referenced managers said she did not recall
any concerns about the notary process being brought to her attention. One notary stated that
Bank of America set a target of notarizing 75 to 80 documents per hour and he was evaluated on
whefher he met the target. According to the data provided, the 10 most active notaries each
notarized between 14,000 and 77,000 foreclosure documents during the 2-year review period.
The data also showed that one notary, in violation of Texas law, notarized her own signature on
two documents.
Despite management representations to the contrary, employee performance reviews
demonstrated that Bank of America used defined goals and metrics to evaluate performance
based on production in its document execution group. For instance, the manager progress notes
section of1\\'o document execution employees' 2009 and 2010 perfonnance reviews stated:
"Your Stats so far this year are as follows: Affidavits 46.97 per hour (standard is 49 per
hour), Assignments 54.74 per hour (standard is 51 per hour) and DocEx 49.67 per hour
(standard is 46 per hour."
"Your stats so far this year are as follows: Affidavits 40.11 (standard is 49.00 an hour).
Assigmnents 43.12 (standard is 51.00 an hour) and DocEx 36.91 (standard is 46.00 an
hour). Your numbers are low but I understand why so they are acceptable."
"... maintains the production standards set by the Document Execution group and has
very few errors... numbers are exceptional for department stats: Printing 140.77%,
Prepping 148.08%, Stapling 148.02% and Notarizing 121.81%."
21 Every Stllle's notary laws require that the nolary personally administer an oath and/or personally verii)r the
identity ofthe document signer.
1J These notaries had additional job duties and responsibilities.
l4 Texas Government Code, Chapler 406. NOlary Public. Commissioner of Deeds, and State of California Notary
Law Section 8200
8
As one of tile primary purposes of using a notary was to verify the authenticity ofthe signer,
Bank of America's failure to ensure that notaries witnessed signatures was a significant control
weakness.
25
Because this type of deficiency undermined the integrity of tile control
environment, the affidavits and other foreclosure documents submitted by Bank of America were
unreliable and inauthentic, and may have exposed it to False Claims Act liability.
Law Firms May HOI'e Engaged in Improper Practices
Bank ofAmerica used law finns that may have engaged in questionable practices to process
FHA-insured foreclosures. These practices ranged from allegations of robosigning and
unauthorized practice oflaw to a judge's mling that in an attempt to collect on questionable debt,
a firm filed deceptive documents and one of its lawyers lied in court.
For example, a high-level Bank ofAmerica official was referred to in a complaint
26
against
Goldbeck, McCafferty, and McKeever, PC (GMM), a law fiml that conducted foreclosure work
for Bank of America. The complaint alleged that nonlawyers in the finn engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law by preparing foreclosure complaints, signing lawyers' names to
those complaints, and filing those complaints in county courts around the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The plaintiff averred that Bank of America knew of, directed, and profited from
the conduct of the nonlawyers and that the high-level official, an allorney, \vas present in a
courtroom when Mr. McKeever testified that it was "standard practice" for nonlawyers to engage
in the unauthorized practice oflaw. The complaint included transcript excerpts frOllllhe
December 8-9, 2009, hearing and 27 exhibits containing signatures supporting the allegation that
nonlawyer defendants prepared, signed, and filed hundreds of thousands of cases without
attorney review.
GMM processed 469 foreclosure documents for Bank of America in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey. Ofthe 118 sample loans, 2 were processed by the finn. As figure 2 shows, it appeared
that at least 5 different individuals signed 13 documents for attorney Michael McKeever for the 2
sample loans. Ifnonlawyers, on GMM's behalf, signed and filed documents for FHA-insured
foreclosures, these filings may not have been valid and may have caused Bank of America to file
false claims.
According to Bank of America. it implemented new procedures in October 2010 that required notaries to
witness amanlS' signatures on foreclosure documents. HO....'eVer. we did not test the procedures, as Bank of
America limited our review to the slaled review period.
Lough,,,,, "s_ Lion. eraf., GD-IO, Allegheny County, PA
9
In another Bank of America example, a notary for Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg testified in a
deposition that over a period, "he falsely acknowledged tens ofthousands of mortgage
assignments"n for the firm, often outside the signer's presence. The notary also acknowledged
under oath that he notarized documents in NewJersey when he did not hold a notary license in
that Slate. In addition, a partner was accused of having potential conflicts of interest in the
In addition, the Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for Western Pennsylvania issued a memorandum
opinion and order
27
and a memorandum order
2g
that were "intended to serve as a public
reprimand,,29 ofGMM and one of its attorneys, Leslie M. Puida. The judge sanctioned the firm
and its attorney for filing deceptive documents in a foreclosure proceeding and found that
"Puida, and by extension GMM, had not been honest with this Court."lO The judge ruled that the
firm filed copies of three key letters created after the fact in an attempt to collect on questionable
debt that were never sent to the homeowner or her lawyer. The judge stated that "the evidence
that Pllida lied was considerable"ll and publicly reprimanded GMM and Leslie M. Puida for
their misconduct and ordered them to report to the Disciplinary Board of the State Supreme
Court.
Our analysis of Bank of America's shipping logs showed that Bank ofAmerica used a small
group of law firms to process foreclosures. As shown in table 1, 10 law firms processed 62 and
81 percenl ofBallk ofAmerica'sjudicial and nonjudicial foreclosure documenfs, respectively.
Many of these law firms had been named in various court proceedings throughout the country,
alleging questionable foreclosure activities.
Schmie" 931 9.35 Turner &. En"el 1875 14.09
Reisenfeld and Associates 732 7.35 Millsa & Sin er, LLC 788 5.92
Carlisle, McNeil ie, Rini,
Kramer & Ulrich Co. 680 6.83 Tro" & Tro" 761 5.72
McFadden, Lyon &
Luoer Neidenthal & Lo"an 610 6.13 ROllse, LLC 580 4.36
Bierman, Gecsing. Ward
Pierce and Associates 520 5,22 & Wood SOl 3.17
Lerner, Sampson &. Martin, Leigh, Laws &
Rothfuss 492 4.94 Fritzlen, PC 479 3.60
Goldbeck McCafferty &
McKeever 469 4.71 Sirote & Penlllltt, PC 454 3.41
Codilis & Associates. PC 398 4.00 Adams & Edens 274 2.06
Barren Burke Wilson
Adorno & Voss 395 3.97 CaSlle Daffin & Fra
'"
220 1.65
Subtotal- 10 10 firnu 6,203 62.32 Subtotal- to 10 firnu 10824 81.36
Subtotal- all others 3,750 37.68 Subtotal- all others 2,480 18.64
Tolal nonjudicial
Total iudicial documenls 9,953 documents 13,304
assignment of mortgage notes.}3 It was argued that the execllted an assignment in his
capacity as a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems 4 officer while Phelan, Hallinan &
Schmieg was also a vendor for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. the assignor. The
notary and partner had both been individually named in proceedings involving questionable
foreclosure practices for servicers other than Bank ofAmerica. 35 According to Bank of
America's records, Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg processed 931 documents for proceedings in 3
judicial foreclosure States.
36
2: thediff, F; r, ,,: ,,'Wollierem 51 naluRS 01 anOrn l\lIcnMI McKeever loriwo sam Ie loans
....r'iotof l-..ordw.ni: l d<cb:. 'hoi I ,hlsSu_...


""""""'".. MoKllllVl!R
BY: M'idIael T. McK_. Req.
A!tomcIyiorPlalmt1f


-110' DB RTV8IMeKEEVER
By; MICH.\El T. McKEEvtR, EsQuIRE
ATTORHtt f<mf>uJN'n:rr
By'r-'_.....
-"...-,-...--...-.-.-
..
--
: MK1!AEI. T. Mt:KEEVER, ESQUIRE
p,. /--

--

21 In r,-lfill. 437 B.R 503 (Bankt. W.D. Pa.. October 5, 2010)
n lJ' IV Hill. 437 RR 503 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. November 24, 2010)
'" lUll! Hill, 437 B.R 503 pg 8 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.. November 24. 2010)
30 lUll! Hill. 437 B.R 503 pg4 (Bania. W.D. Pa., November 24, 2010)
II II/t't! Hif{, 437 RR. 503 pg 5 (Bankr. W.D. Pa., November 24, 2010)
II BankojNo!ll' YorIo'. Ukpe, pg6Dockel No. F-I0209-0S
10
Bank ojNt!lv YOI* v. UkI'C, Docket No. F-I0209-QS
), Conlmonly referred to as MERS
)l U. S. Bank NA v. Sincho!garcia, F-18446-08. DI!/Ilsche Batik National Trust Compatl)I'. Chnrll!tlc Smith, No.
08-3089
:I<S Bank of America provided dala that accounted for only about one.third of its FHA foreclosures during OIlT
review period. This lack ofdata impeded identification of the complete volume ofdocuments each law firm
prepared.
11
On November 16, 2010, the Congressional Oversight Panel released an in-depth report analyzing
the robosigning allegations. n Its report concluded that "[t]he foreclosure documentation
irregularities unquestionably shoY'; a system riddled with errors" and emphasized "that mortgage
lenders and securitization servicers should not undertake to foreclose on any homeowner unless
they are able to do so in full compliance with applicable laws and their contractual agreements."
Ifthird-party law finns engaged in questionable practices on behalfofBank of America, the
foreclosures may not have complied with laws and agreements. These questionable practices
may have exposed Bank of America to liability under the False Claims Act.
Legal Were Not COllSi.\'lenlly Maintained
Bank of America's FHA claim files for the 118 sample loans did not consistently oontain
relevant preforeclosure information tluit supported the legal basis for foreclosure. Therefore,
Bank of America could not demonstrate that it conveyed clear and marketable title to HUD. In
addition, the file reviews identified 23 affiants who signed foreclosure documents on Bank of
America's behalf but were not authorized to do so by appropriate board resolution as provided
by Bank of America, According to its records, the 23 individuals signed 820 foreclosure
documents during the review period. HUD should require Bank of America to retain in its FHA
claim files legal documents supporting the foreclosure and the underlying supporting business
records for those legal documents.
Aj(idm'i/s COII/ained Inconsistencies and Errors
We reviewed lhe seven affidavits that contained judgment figures in judicial foreclosure States to
determine whether they were mathematically correct. Bank of America calculated per diem
interest charges inconsistently and had discrepancies in accrued interest totals. Specifically, it
calculated per diem interest using a 360-day year in three cases, 365 days in two cases, an
undetermined method in one case, and both methods in ditTerent versions of the document in the
last case. Errors in interest calculations ranged from $16to $470. This error rate indicated that
Bank of America lacked proper controls to ensure that it correctly and consistently calculated
accrued interest charges in documents it filed in courts to support its foreclosure actions,
However, the unpaid principal balance Oil each affidavit matched the amount 011 the FHA
insurance claim in all seven cases.
Bank ofAmerica Conveyed (/ Properly That Had on Incorrect Legal Description to HUD
Bank of America conveyed a property located in Modesto, CA, to HOO with an incorrect legal
description.
Jli
California is a two-deed State, requiring a trustee deed and a grant deed. The
grant deed conveying the property title to HOO used a legal description for a property on another
street. Because the legal description was incorrect, Bank of America did not give HOO good and
31 Congressional Oversight Panel. Novemlxlr Oversighf Report Examining the Consequences of Mortgage
Irregularilies for Financial Stability and Fore<:losure Mitigation (Novemlxlr 16, 2010), available at
hltp:llcop.senate.gov/docurnenlS!cop_111610_report.pdf(sllbmitted under section 125(b)(I) of Tille 1 oflhe
Emergency Economic Stabilization ACI of2oo8, Pub. L. No_ 110-343)
)1 FHA case number 045.6483650
12
marketable title 10 the property. HUD reguiatiolls
J9
required Bank ofAmerica to cOllvey good
and marketable title as well as satisfactory title evidence. Because its internal controls did not
prevent the error, its foreclosure and later conveyance of title to HOO were improper. HUD
should require Bank of America to remedy the apparent defect in title for this property.
CONCLUSION
Bank of America did not establish an effective control environment to ensure the integrity of its
foreclosure process. Because it failed to establish proper policies and procedures that fostered
compliance with laws and regulations, its aftiants robosigned foreclosure documents, its notaries
failed to authenticate signatures, and il used law finlls thai Illay have falsified legal foreclosure
documents. As a result of its flawed control environment, Bank of America engaged in improper
practices by not fully oomplying with applicable foreclosure procedures when processing
foreclosures on FHA-insured loans, thereby misrepresenting its claims to HUD.
During the review period, Bank of America submitted 8,973 conveyance claims
40
totaling $1.1
billion in the 23 judicial foreclosure Slates and jurisdictions. 001 used our review and analysis
in negotiating the settlement agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Once the settlement agreement is approved by the court, GIG will issue a separate summary
memorandum to HOO containing recommendations to correct weaknesses discussed in this and
the other fOur memorandums. Accordingly, this memorandum contains recommendations 10
address only specific Bank of America deficiencies.
We recommend that HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing
lAo Ensure that Bank ofAmerica retains appropriate legal documentation supporting all
FHA-insllred foreclosures in its FHA claim files.
lB. Require Bank of America to remedy lhe apparent defect in title for the property it
conveyed to HUD with the incorrect legal description (FHA case number 045-6483650).
We recommend that the Director ofHUD's Departmental Enforcement Center
IC. Pursue appropriate administrative sanctions against notaries who may have violated State
notary requirements.
I D. Pursue appropriate administrative sanctions against attorneys who may have violated
professional obligations related to foreclosures of FHA-insured mortgages.
Appendix:
Appendix A Affiant and Notary Nan'atives
24 C.F.R. 203,358
Excludes deeds in lieu offoreclosure
13
APPENDIX
Appendix A
AFFIANT AND NOTARY NARRATIVES
The affiant and notary narratives in this appendix detail the vohunes of documents signed or
notarized by selected amants and notaries. We selected six examples of the affiant and notary
narratives to include in this memorandum from the 34 employees to whom DOJ served CIDS.
41
As stated in the body of tile memorandum, the data Bank ofAmerica provided accounted for
only approximately one-third of its FHA foreclosures. Therefore, we have no assurance that the
figures presented in the narratives were complete and reliable.
The narratives also include excerpts from relevant testimony from CIO proceedings conducted
by OOJ and excerpts from personnel records provided by Bank ofAmerica. In response to our
December 2, 2010, subpoena, Bank of America submitted partia.! personnel documentation
instead of providing complete personnel records as required. As a result, it was not possible to
know whether Bank ofAmerica omitted information relevant to our review. However, the
excerpts demonstrated that document volumes increased during the review period and Bank of
America evaluated employee perfomlance based at least in part on whether employees met
predetermined melrics for processing foreclosure documents. The primary purpose ofthe
narratives was to assist DOJ in preparing for cmproceedings.
.. Two employees who served as both all affiant and not:lry. IWO employees who were affiants. and two
employees who were notaries
14
Manager 1 - Affiant and Notary
Manager I signed 12 foreclosure documents for 8 oraur 118 sample loans, 2 of which were
potentially presented as evidence in judicial State court proceedings.
Affia1l1 Statistics
According to Bank of America's shipping logs, manager I signed 46,936 and notarized 45
foreclosure documents during the 2year review period.
gr' .. ';-c;, '
Documents: <'''::l\follth'''':
Oct 2008 449 Oct 2009 3,203
Nov 2008 14' Nov 2009 III
Dec 2008 673 Dec 2009 8
Jan 2009 1,136 Jan 2010 1,681
Feb 2009 1,104 Feb 2010 3,911
Mar 2009 1,187 Mar 2010 5,486
Apr 2009 1,765 Apr 2010 6,098
May 2009 499 May 2010 2,903
Jun 2009 979 lun 2010 1,812
Jul2009 664 Jul2010 2,652
Au 2009 1,760 Au 2010 6,213
Se 2009 1,269 Se 2010 1,225
Total documents si ned 46,936
7.000
6.000
Manager 1 signatures
1'\
$.000
I
4.000
I \
3.000
1\
I \/
2.000
./\ N I
1.000
-/
V"
J
0
8g8

gggg g
000 00
000
N N N MMNMN NNN

15
Manager I routinely signed foreclosure documents, including affidavits, certifying that she had
personal knowledge of the facts when she did not. She consistently failed to verify the accuracy
ofthe foreclosure documents she signed.
ell) Tes/imoll)'
Manager 1testified that Bank of America's process did not require her to verify the information
in foreclosure documents before signing. She agreed that the standard industry practice was to
execute affidavits without reading documents. She did not specifically recall reading documents.
She also agreed that it was industry practice to have documents notarized outside the presence of
the signer. In her testimony, manager I responded that her direct supelVisor, a vice president,
was aware and approved of the industry standard being followed. She assumed her supelVisor's
boss would have approved and been aware of the same.
When llsked about a paragrnph manager 1 signed stating that she had personal knowledge,
manager I said that she "didn't read the document to read personal knowledge. Again, the
process was just to sign the document." When asked ifshe did anything to verify an amount that
was due and owing, manager I responded, "No. The process at the time was just to sign the
document." Manager I gave similar answers throughollt her testimony. She was also a notary
and testified that she did not typically witness signatures.
Persmme/ File Excerpt
Manager l's supelVisor (manager 3) discussed goals, metrics, and a reengineered document
execution process in her 20lO performance review:
Your group "now has clear goals and metrics by which to evaluate perfonnance. There
exists an opportunity to address poor perfonnance issues more rapidly."
"You have completed the re-engineering ofthe document execution proicess [sic]. This
was a significant initiative you formulated that has enabled your group to rapidly scale up
to match increasing volumes as well as improve turnaround time and communication."
16
Manager 2- Affiant and Notary
Manager 2 signed foreclosure documents for 4 of our 118 sample loans, I of which was
potentially presented as evidence in a judicial State court proceeding. Manager 2 also notarized
one judicial State foreclosure docnment.
Ajfialll Slali.slic.\'
According to Bank of America's shipping logs, manager 2 signed 67,908 and notarized 1,390
foreclosure documents during the 2-year review period. Bank ofAmerica's records indicated
that manager 2 notarized her own signature on two documents.
"-'Mo'iitW'"
. ... ..
CO:Ul1l' :Counl:--I;,;;; f>i"L",Counl: >':Montb':':'
Oct 2008 2,070 Jun 2009 3,471 Feb 2010 178
Nov 2008 590 Jul2009 3,411 Mar20lO 552
Dec 2008 830 Aug 2009 3,796 Apr 2010 3,345
Jan 2009 1,303 Sep 2009 652 May 2010 5,482
Feb 2009 3,217 Ocl2009 1,068 Jun 2010 7,443
Mar 2009 4,267 Nov 2009 324 Jul2010 8,884
Apr 2009 5,115 Dec 2009 5 Aug20lO 8,753
May 2009 2,155 Jan 2010 27 Sep 2010 970
Total documents sie:ned 67,908
10,000
Manal!er 1. sil!natllres
9,000
r
8,000
I
1,000
6,000
I
5,000
/\ I
4,000
/ \ ,...;'\ I
3,000
I V \ I
2,000
'\ .J \ I
1,000

"-
..;
0

888

00 00
00
NNN N N

" " ,

"

z :2 ZO
17
Manager 2 routinely signed foreclosure documents, including affidavits, certifYing that she had
personal knowledge ofthe facts when she did not. She consistently failed to verify the accuracy
of the foreclosure documents she signed. Manager 2 also routinely notarized documents without
witnessing affiant signatures and failed to keep required records of the documents she notarized.
('ID n'stimollY
Manager 2 acknowledged that she did not have personal knowledge when she signed foreclosure
documents. Further, she would not typically have additional case-related documents available to
her when she signed affidavits, bUI the infonnation was available in Bank ofAmerica's computer
syslem. However, she acknowledged that she did nol routinely inform herself by looking at the
computer system.
Manager 2 testified Ihat she would read the first paragraph of the document before locating the
"sign here" sticky directing her attention to the particular place she would need to sign. She
estimated that she spent approximately IY.! to 2 hours per day signing documents and spent 2 to 3
minutes on each document. Notaries were not present when lllanager 2 signed documents, and
other signers in her group did not make a habit of signing with notaries present. Further, as a
notary, she did not typically witness the signing of documents and referred to Bank of America's
shipping log as an electronic notary log.
Personnel File ExcerpJ
In her 2009 perfonnance review, manager 2 and her supervisor (manager I) discussed volume
increases and departmental growth:
"Your leam continues to grow through this time of unprecedented volume."
"When assumed the group late in 2006 had no idea, like others. volume would result with
a dramatic increase. Due 10 the volume group has evolved from 15-20 associates 10 30+
and continues to grow."
"In order to assist the huge increase in the document request volume, contractors were
hired July-August to assist wilh the prepping ofdocumenls... By 3
rd
quarter, document
request volume exceeded expectations due to high foreclosure referral volume. To
address increased volume, in addition to the four above new associates and [sic]
additional eight associates were hired."
18
Manager 3 - Affiant
Manager 3 signed 7 foreclosure documents for6 of our 118 sample loans, I of which was
potentially presented as evidence in ajudicial State court proceeding.
Affiant Statistics
According to Bank ofAmerica's shipping logs, manager 3 signed 36,885 foreclosure documents
during the 2-year review period.
Oct 2008 0 Oct 2009 2,976
Nov 2008 0 Nov 2009 128
Dec 2008 0 Dec 2009 9
Jan 2009 I Jan 2010 1,090
Feb 2009 0 Feb 2010 3.835
Mar 2009 I Mar2010 4,380
Aor2009 0 ADr 20 10 2,294
May 2009 56 Mav 2010 696
Jun 2009 2,880 Jun 2010 997
Jul2009 7,938 Jul2010 2
Au 2009 6,456 Au 2010 2
SeD 2009 3,144 Se 2010 0
Total documents siened 36,885
9,000
Manager 3 signatures
8,000
f\
7,000
\
6,000
\
5,000
4,000
...
3,000
\ f \
\ I \
2,000
I \ I \
1,000
I \ / \.
0
~
0".0-.0-. 0,0-.0.0,0-. 0 00 00
888 88888
~ ~ g ~ g
'"
MMNNM
~
:;; So ~
~ ~ 2 ~ ~
1l
-, gJfr
.<:; ~ ~ ~ < ~
19
6,000
Manager 3 routinely signed foreclosure documents, including affidavits, certifying that she had
personal knowledge of the filcts when she did not. She consistently failed to verify the accuracy
ofthe foreclosure documents she signed.
C!D Testimony
Manager 3 testified that documents were checked before they came to her for signature.
However, she acknowledged that she did not verify infonnation or undertake a review of a
specific loan file to give herself"firsthand knowledge ofthe business records with respect to an
actual loan before signing a document." She stated that she looked at the document, looked at
the investor, and signed it. While manager 3 stated that sometimes notaries watched as she
signed documents, she acknowledged that generally they did not watch her sign the documents.
Manager 3 explained that as a vice president, she managed four groups: foreclosure group,
quality control group, reporting group, and document execution group. These groups were
managed by three vice presidents and an assistant vice president. For the quality control group,
manager 3 did not recall any written quality control policies or procedures, and she did not
participate in the creation of policies. She acknowledged an increase in document volume a.nd an
expansion of the document execution group because of the increase. She knew that there were a
number of affiants who were not assigned to the document execution group who signed
foreclosure-related legal documents. According to her, the preparation process simply involved
a stamp being placed on a particular document with a sticky identifying the page to be signed.
Manager 3 also testified that recmiting new affiants was an ongoing process and thst managers
made recommendations for them. She was not familiar with the process for the review team in
India. In addition, she acknowledged that she understood that courts relied on documents that
she signed in deciding foreclosure cases.
20
Manager 4 - Affiant
Manager 4 signed foreclosure documents for 13 of our 118 sample loans, 5 of which were
potentially presented as evidence in judicial State court proceedings.
Affiant SWfislics
According to Bank of America's shipping logs, manager 4 signed 42,926 foreclosure documents
during the 2-year review period.
__
;}Couiit '---:M6'lith" :-; 7:Courif = :-;;diiilii "M:olfth</
Oct 2008 1,330 Apr 2009 2,533 Oct 2009 3,380
Nov 2008 788 Mav 2009 4,477 Nov 2009 147
Dec 2008 2,052 Jun 2009 3,927 Dec 2009 220
Jan 2009 3,059 luI 2009 2,077 Jan 2010 3,179
Feb 2009 2,031 All' 2009 5,439 Feb 2010 1,156
Mar 2009 3,683 Sen 2009 3,424 Mar 20 10 24
Totsl documents shmed 42,926
Manager 4 signatures
5,000
4,000 +------+:>,--1'--\,-----------
3,000 +---fr-l-\,I--\
2,000 +-_+_"- -'L__\.
1,000 P./----------Il-I--\------


NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

21
Manager 4 routinely signed foreclosure documents, including affidavits, certifYing that she had
personal knowledge ofthe facts when she did not. She consistently failed to verify the accuracy
ofthe foreclosure documents she signed.
Notary 1
Notary 1 notarized 7 foreclosure documents for 6 of our liS sample loans, 3 of which were
potentially presented as evidence in judicial State court proceedings. Notary I notarized the
highest volume of documents during the 2-year review periOd.


--Documents --Signaru'es
+
_
12,000
1O,000.f------/;,A,--------------:--
8,000 +----h'-'A-----------*-
6,000 f--.,.-'l'--'I<\------------r\_
4,000
2,000
o _ _ _ _ _
No/my S'latislics
According to Bank of America's shipping logs, notary I notarized 77,447 foreclosure
documents, containing 94,167 signatures, during the 2-year review period.

::c:Jofo:ti!h"
OC12008 3,687 OCl2009 267 OC12008 4,493 OCI2009 419
Nov 2008 3,370 Nov2009 0 Nov 2008 4,021 Nov2009 0
Dec 2008 4,653 De(:2009 4 D&:2008 5,817 D&:2009 4
Ian 2009 5,266 ]an2010 294 Ian 2009 6.302 ]an2010 444
Feb 2009 6,769 Feb2010 1,049 Feb 2009 8,535 Feb 2010 1.160
Mar 2009 9,760 Mar 2010 2,728 Mar2OO9 11,880 Mar 2010 3,252
A r2009 6,948 A r2010 3,584 A r2009 9,273 A r2010 3,885
Ma 2009 5,355 Ma 2010 III "'fa 2009 7,016 Ma 2010 120
]un2009 2,807 ]un20tO 1.273 ]un2009 3.493 ]un2010 1.430
]ul2009 3,761 ]u12010 2,960 luI 2009 4,917 ]u12010 3,382
Au 2009 1,188 Au 2010 8,244 Au 2009 1,448 Au 2010 9,031
Se 2009 616 Se 2010 2,753 Se 2009 865 Se 2010 2,980
Total documents 77,447 Total Signlltures notarued 94.167
r ,--
ClD Tes/imony
When asked how she went about gaining an understanding of what she was supposed to do with
documents that were brought to her, manager 4 testified, "I don't recall ifanybody - ifmy
supelVisor spoke to me about it, I mean, you know. you just see it. You just. you know." Her
standard process in signing documents was to scan the document, ensure that her name was
listed. and then sign it. Manager 4 estimated that she would execute 100 documents per day in Yz
hour or less. She staled that notaries were not presenl when she executed documents. Manager 4
stated that she understood that the documents were verified before she signed them. but she did
not recall how she gained that understanding.
22 23
Notary 1 rominely notarized documents without witnessing affiant signatures and failed 10 keep
required records of the documents she notarized.
Notary 2
Notary 2 notarized foreclosure documents for 3 of our liS sample loans, 2 of which were
potentially presented as evidence in judicial State court proceedings.
Notwy Statistics
According to Bank of America's shipping logs, notary 2 notarized 27,585 foreclosure
documents, containing 31,236 signatures, during the 2-year review period.
1Q?
145
..2-
1Q
229
m
457
305
2"Z
!.
Q
-'l
3t.236

'ilu .
>M'llili'i{,;'
Oct 2008 1,372 Oct 2009
Nov 2008 715 Nov 2009
Dec 2008 1,666 Dec 2009
Jan 2009 1,288 Jan2010
Feb 2009 1,268 Feb 20\0
Mar 2009 1,180 Mar 2010
"-.
A r 2009 2,253 A r 2010
Ma 2009 2,814 Ma 2010
Jun 2009 3,763 Jun 2010
Jul 2009 5,299 Jul2010
Au 2009 5,617 Au 2010
Se 2009 l.l88 Se 2010
TOlal sil:natures notarized
457
305
90.1-
!.
Q
__0
27,585
.l.
l!1
'"


502
145
0
g g g g g g g g g g g gg g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

-Documents --Signatures
5,000 t---------j--;------------
4,000 +----------hf--\\-----------
3,000 j-------,'f---1l----------
',000 j------F=
1,000
-
6,000
Jifti'oii'.m
,
Oct 2008 1,356 Oet2009
Nov 2008 691 Nov 2009
Dec 2008 1,635 Dec 2009
Jan 2009 1,272 Jan 2010
Feb 2009 1,215 Feb 2010
Mar 2009 1,152 Mar2010
A r2009 2,182 A r2010
Ma 2009 2,299 Ma 2010
Jun 2009 3,278 Jun 2010
Jul 2009 4,268 Jul 2010
Au 2009 4,514 Au 2010
Se 2009 946 Sep 2010
Total documenls nOlarized
Notary I testified that when she began her employment, her department processed 60 to 200
documents per day. It increased to 10,000 to 20,000 documents sitting in an in-box. She stated
that employees wondered how they were going to process them. According to notary 1, half of
the documents were duplicates, and they had a 24- to 4Shour turnaround timeframe, which
notary I believed was unreasonable. Notary I stated that employees tried to relay the
unreasonableness of the turnaround time to team leaders and supervisors but were told to
continue with whatlhey were doing.
Notary I also testified that she and others thougllt they should be notarizing documents in front
of the affiant. When she raised this issue, she was told that it was acceptable not to be in the
presence of an affiant when notarizing a document if the notary knew the affiant and his or her
signature. Further, she was told by management to SlOp checking the details on documents such
as assignments, deeds, and affidavits.
Review ofPersonnel File Excerpts
Although managers represented that Bank of America had no quota system, it appeared that
employees were evaluated based on production. For example, in her 2009 evaluation, notary l's
manager made the following comment: "continues to meet the deadlines and complying with. th.e
requirements ofthe attorneys. She meets the production standards set by the Document
Execution Group." In addition, notary I commented that she had "always been able to meet or
exceed required stats and deadlines," and her manager commented on notal)' I's understanding
the need to meet the set timelines.
elf) Testimony
Notary I testified that she did not maintain a nolary log book, but Bank of America had an Excel
spreadsheet. She explained that she knew she was required to keep a log as an individual but as
an employee of the bank, she did not feel it was her responsibility. Notary I also did not witness
signatures or swear an oath for affiants. She also testified that she observed affiants signing
documents without reading them.
24 25
Notal)' 2 routinely notarized documents without witnessing affiant signatures and failed to keep
required records of the documents he notarized.
elf) Tes/imollY
Notary 2 testified that generally he was not present when affiants signed documents and he did
not maintain a notary log book. He stated that this was the nonnal practice at Countrywide and
Bank of America. In cases of rush documents (approximately I percent of the documents), he
would witness signatures. Notary 2 testified that supervisors were aware of his and other
notaries' practice of not witnessing affiants signing documents. Productivity was monitored by
the team managers, and they would periodically change the performance metrics.
According to notary 2, Countrywide's instructions on how to notarize documents was nothing
more than where to place the notary stamp and sign the document. He received no other notary
training, written materials, or oral instructions. When he became a Bank of America employee,
his process did not change. To his recollection, Bank ofAmerica did not perform an operational
review of his area when it acquired Countrywide.
26
CAUSE NO: 6594-FD-2

VS.

X
X
X
X
JUSTICE/SMALL CLAIMS COURT
PRECINCT 2
ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF TRIAL
The above referenced case is set for a TRIAL on FRIDAY
MARCH 30,2012 at 1:30 P.M. in the Courtroom of Judge
Christopher M. Clark, Ector County Courthouse, 300 N. GRANT,
Room #208, Odessa, Texas.
RICHARD A. ROMAN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 79902
Telephone (915) 351-2679 Fax (915) 351-6754
E-mail: rromanattorney@yahoo.com
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DATE: March 16, 2012 TIME: 4:00 p.m.
TO:
FROM:
FAX NO.:
RE:
Justice Court of Ector CO)lnty )
Olga Panchenko, Esq. V l ~ t '1 I '5 '70 ~ n ~ 5 '
Richard A. Roman
432/ 4984178
Bank of New York v. BruscuelasI/6594-FD-2
PAGES (Including Cover Sheet): _14 _ (fourteen)
HARD COPIES TO FOLLOW?
COMMENTS:
___NO
_x_YES
All information contained in this facsimile message is
attorney exclusive and confidential, intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Should the
reader of this message not be the intended recipient, or agent
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, return the original message via the
United States Postal Service. Thank you for your cooperation.
; ; Communication Result Report (Mar. 28. 2012 9:35AM) ;
P.
Fax Header)
Date/Time: Mar. 28. 2012 9:24AM
Richard Roman Atty
Fi I e
No. Mode
3186 Memory TX
Destination
16195901385
Pg (s)
P. 14
Page
Not Sent
Reason for error
E.1) Hang UP or 1 ine tai 1
E.3) No answe r
E.5) Exceeded max. E-mail size
E.2) Busy .
E.4) No facsimile connection
RICHARD A. ROMAN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
$OS East. RIa Gm,..,
I!I Paso. Texas 79002
Telephone (9'15) 351-2679 Fax (915) 351-6754
E-maIl: nonaanBftorney@yalloo.com
FACSIMILI! TRANSMISSiON
DATE: March is. 2012
4:00 p.m.
TO.
FRO..
.Justtc_ Court of Ector )
Olga Panchenko, Eeq. V l {; tT( "S 10 _ n
RIchard A. Ko......
FAXNO.:: 432/ 498-4178
HI!: Bank of NowYentI: Y. 8S94-Rt4
PAGES (lacludlng CoYer stiNt):
HARD COPIES TO FOUoW?
COMMENTs:
_14_ (foaateen)
___NO -'L-YES
All lnfo..mation contained in thb f.cslnlBe -.go 1$
Ilttorney exclusive altCl confidential, Intanded only for the use. of
the Individual 'or entity tv Whom It Is addrused.: 8houtd tb_
N"" of this m.asage not be .... Intended recipient, or agent
..-poIIsIbJe for delivery to the IntendedI8dpJrMtt, you ..notified
that aoy dlaMmiAatlon, cIIstrlbutIon or copying of thls
COIIJa1UItlcation ill strictly praIIlbIl6d'. If you rectriYed thill
communication In en'Ot'". Nturn the 0 ....... via the
Unlted state. Postal 1'h:arIk you for your COOIl' ration.
P,
Communication Result Report (Mar, 28, 2012 9:24AM)
Date/Time: Mar, 28, 2012 9:23AM
Fax Header) Richard Roman Atty
Fi I e
No, Mode
3185 Memory TX
Destination
14324984178
Pg (s)
P,
Page
Not Sent
Reason for error
E." Hang up or 1 jne fail
E.3) No answe r
E.5) Exceeded max. E-mail size
E.2) Busy
E.4) No f<:lcsimile connection
RICHARD A. ROMAN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
SOlI eut RIo
EJ P--. Texas 79902
T"'phone (815) 3&1-2679 F.ax (ViS) 351.e7S4
.mall:: rmmanPt!orneylWahoo.com
FACSJIIJLE TRANSMISSION
DATE= Mard1116, 2012 TillE: 4:00 po....
TOJ .Iu$tice Court of Ector County
Olga Panchenko, Eaq.
FROII: Richard A. R",,"
FAXNO.1 432/491-4178
RE= Ihmk or NewYark v. Bruscue..,/6S94-FD-2
PAces (Including eov. Stleet):
HARD COPIes TO FOLLOW?
co.-errs:
_14_ (fourteen)
NO --><-YES
AD cont8lned In this muug. Is
lIIttornoy exclusive mid cDlllldentlal, Intwnded only for the _, of
the IndivldWlI or .mtty to Whom It Is adcIreuecL Should tfMt
read of this manage not be IN InteRdM ......pIent, or agent
rnponsIbIe fordelkwyto the Inteaded raclplent,you ant DOtIfied
tlult My dissemination, distribution or copying of this
Is stricti)' prohibited. H YO. received this
coaummiclltlon In ....... Ntum the orIain:al .......... via the
Unlt8d StIltu POlIte! 8ervk:4l. Thank you for your CDDpllratloli.
RICHARD A. ROMAN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
505 East Rio Grande
EI Paso, Texas 79902
Telephone (915) 3512679 Fax (915) 351-6754
E-mail: rromanattorney@yahoo.com
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DATE: March 28, 2012 TIME: 12: 30 p.m.
TO: Justice Court of Ector County
Olga Panchenko, Esq.
FROM: Richard A. Roman
FAX NO.: 432/498-417811619/590-1385
RE: Bank of New York v. BruscuelasIl6594-FD-2
PAGES (Including Cover Sheet):
HARD COPIES TO FOLLOW?
COMMENTS:
_32
___NO
_x_YES
All information contained in this facsimile message is
attorney exclusive and confidential, intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Should the
reader of this message not be the intended recipient, or agent
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, return the original message via the
United States Postal Service. Thank you for your cooperation.