Fair enough, right? Part of the governments case against the cops is that they allege that they lied about their jobs and falsified their incomes. That may seem like nothing, but at the end of the day lying on a 1003 mortgage application is against the law, splitting hairs perhaps, but still against the law. With that in mind, let's revisit the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case for a moment. Let's assume that Mr. Barrera did get his identity stolen during the commission of this fraud, how did the fraudsters verify his employment and income? From what we've been able to glean from the files, the real Mr. Barrera hasn't been gainfully employed since late 2005, so how was he or the people who stole his identity able to get him qualified for a $600,000 home purchase? This document that was sent to CitiMortgage may answer that question...
Bernardo Barrera Verification of Employment
Interesting isn't it? After reading that document, isn't it safe to say that a reasonably prudent detective or prosecutor would investigate this verification of employment letter before moving forward with their case? At the very minimum we have two new people added into the mix, a mortgage broker who claims to have spoken to someone that verified Mr. Barrera's employment as well as the business owner who claimed that Mr. Barrera was not only gainfully employed but also that "the likelihood of his continued employment was excellent". Considering how important that verification of employment letter was to obtaining the fraudulent mortgage, why is there no evidence anywhere in the states file that the two people mentioned in that letter were ever interviewed regarding the Oak Avenue home purchase? If submitting false proof of employment and income was enough to federally indict the cops in the Plantation case, why wasn't it enough to get these guys arrested on the Barrera fraud case? Something doesn't add up here.
How come page 2 and 3 of the document show a different business name than the one listed on page 1?
ReplyDeleteLooks the same to me? Miryil enterprises?
ReplyDeleteYou should keep your eye on the Plantation Cops case. I heard that one of the attorneys who "enriched" himself had to have the court appoint an attorney for him. The taxpayers will pay for the defense of a person who should never have been there in the first place.
ReplyDelete