Prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski STRIKES BACK!

So where were we?  I believe we left off at the point in the deposition of the states star witness from the Barrera mortgage fraud case just before prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski's case went...

As we discovered over the last few days, the entire basis of Mr. Kostrzewski's case went to shit because his key witness who claimed she had never seen the cashiers check which was used as a down payment for the purchase of the Oak Avenue home that's at the center of the fraud suddenly remembered that indeed she had received the check as evidenced by her handwriting on the face of said check.  This admission by the states star witness completely negates her previous testimony where she stated that she had never seen the check in question and that if she did, she would have gone ahead and called off the closing since the remitter on the check was not the person who was buying the home.


So what's this "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" to do at this point?  His whole case has just gone down the shitter, his only hope is to grab the reins and try to straighten things out by cross examining his star witness.  The transcript speaks for itself...

Good move Mr. Kostrzewski, remind the witness why they're here, make the witness comfortable.  The whole check thing was a major fuck up, you know the witness admitting that indeed they did receive the check that they previously denied ever seeing is a a fatal blow to your case so let's change the subject.  Now let's watch as prosecutor Kostrzewski brings up the HUD-1 statement that he's been alleging was signed by attorney Delaila Estefano which according to him has incorrect and fraudulent information on it, that should get things moving in the right direction again, right?

WHOA!  WHAT THE FCUK MR. KOSTRZEWSKI?  You've been alleging for nearly two years that the attorney, Delaila Estefano had created and signed a bogus HUD-1 and now it turns out that she didn't and it was your star witness that did?  HOLY CRAP!  At this point, I don't think he's even fully grasped what the witness just admitted to, what now Mr. Kostrzewski?  How the hell are you going to right this ship?

Great idea, take a deep breath, regroup and start over.  Things aren't exactly going your way now are they Mr. Kostrzewski?  Let's watch as the "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" tries to regain control of the situation...

For fucks sake, here we go again.  True to form Mr. Kostrzewski tries his best to put words in the witnesses mouth, when the witness won't say what you want, MAKE THEM SAY WHAT YOU WANT!  In fact, the witness had received this check, she states as much just a few moments before...

Ok, let's watch as "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" Kostrzewski tries to get his witness in line, regain control of the situation and try to save whatever is left of this steaming pile of shit he calls a case...

HUH?! Go back and read that again and see if it makes any sense to you.  According to prosecutor Kostrzewski, the check in question was from the "buyer's end of the transaction" and his witness did not meet with the buyer, but met with Mr. John Romney who was the BUYER?  What in the FUCK?  I can only imagine the mood in the room as this nonsense comes spewing out of the "veteran economic crimes prosecutor", fortunately for Mr. Kostrzewski, the witness clarifies the situation for him...

That's right prosecutor Kostrzewski, let's give you a brief rundown of the players so you don't get confused:

• John Romney, seller of the Oak avenue home involved in the fraud.
• Bernardo Barrera (or impostor) the man who claimed his identity was stolen and used for the purchase of the home involved in this fraud.
• Michael Martinez, the man who lent Barrera (or impostor) the money for the down payment.
• Delaila Estafano, the attorney who you claimed created and executed bogus HUD-1 statements and accepted a third party cashiers check for the down payment on the home.

Got it?  It might not be a bad idea the next time you go into a deposition for you to write the names and roles of the critical players on a small crib sheet, this way you won't humiliate yourself in front of your peers.  The ultimate indignity for a defendant, to be prosecuted by someone who doesn't have the slightest idea what or who the case he's prosecuting is about.


So now what?  Prosecutor Kostrzewski based his case on allegations that the attorney he arrested created and executed bogus HUD-1 statements and that the attorney surreptitiously accepted a third party cashiers check for the purchase of the home that's at the center of the Barrera mortgage fraud case.  Now his start witness, the witness that his entire case is based around completely negates his claims and admits that not only did they sign the HUD-1 statements that he alleges were fraudulent but that this same witness also accepted and processed this cashiers check.  Add into the mix this "acknowledgment of closing instructions by closing agent" , that the prosecutor conveniently has ignored since the inception of the case which again was not signed by the attorney who he arrested...

Now what do you got?  What you have is nothing but a heap of shit of a case, you got documents that clearly exonerate the attorney whose office conducted the closing, documents that have been in the states possession from the get go yet the prosecutor decided to press charges any way.  What's most disturbing is what happens from this point forward, rather than seeing the mistakes he clearly made in building this case, rather than dismissing the charges that were clearly made in error, prosecutor Kostrzewski keeps moving forward and refuses to admit to his mistakes, no matter how severe the consequences.  These actions are what clearly defines this man, a man who at least in my opinion has no business being a lawyer, let alone a prosecutor.

Since we know you frequent our little blog Mr. Kostrzewski, I'll leave the next part to you, should I expose what you've been doing to undermine the prosecutor who replaced you in the Barrera mortgage fraud case here in public or should I go to your boss in private and share what I know?  The jig is up Mr. Kostrzewski and I haven't even gotten warmed up yet...

Even more on that cashiers check from the Barrera mortgage fraud case...

Yesterday we listened as the states star witness testified regarding a cashiers check for the down payment for the purchase of the Oak Avenue home that was involved in the Barrera mortgage fraud that was brought to closing as follows...

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Wonderful.  The crux of the states case is based on this check circumventing the law offices established protocol for escrow checks which according to the states witness is as follows...

1. Write a file number on the check.
2. Make a copy of the check.
3. Put a copy of the check in the file.
4. Give the original to the bookkeeper for processing.

The state alleges that since this check was given directly to the attorney and not the office employee that handled the closing and that this proves that the attorney was involved in some nefarious scheme to defraud the lender out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

Let's pick up the states star witnesses deposition where we left off yesterday...

The attorney is referring to this copy of the check in question...

Now, before we get to the next bit I'd like you to imagine that smug self righteous, self aggrandizing look on Prosecutor Kostrzewski's face and remember the entire basis of his case against the attorney he charged was from this witnesses testimony regarding this check and the fact that she never saw it nor ever knew anything about it and if she did she would have called the lender and canceled the entire transaction.  In case you forgot what that look is, this is probably pretty close...

Back to that state's star witness...

NO FUCKING SHIT HUH?  How's that self righteous, self aggrandizing look on the prosecutors face now?

So what about all this bullshit?

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing. 

That's just it, pure fucking bullshit.  That's the most highly manufactured and coached statement I've ever seen since the inception of this case, the question is, who made it up?  Was it the dipshit cop or the inept prosecutor?  The worst part of this whole ordeal?  The cop and the prosecutor had copies of this check with the handwritten file number on it since before the arrests were made, unfortunately for them, there's irrefutable proof that they had it, so you have to ask, why the hell did they go ahead with this witnesses testimony knowing that it was false?

More on that cashiers check from the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud...

We left off last week discussing the cashiers check used for the down payment for the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud and the testimony from the girl at the law office who conducted the closing where she specifically stated that she had never received said cashiers check nor was she aware of it's existence.  Here's here statement as it appears in the arrest affidavit...

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

And once again, here's a copy of the check as it was presented by the state...

Super.  Here's the check, she had no idea of it's existence, if she had know about it, she would have jumped up and down and canceled the whole deal.  Fantastic.  Let's jump over to an excerpt from this lovely young lady's deposition and see how these types of escrow checks were handled in her capacity at the law office...

Simple enough, according to her testimony, the procedure regarding escrow checks was as follows:

1. Write a file number on the check.
2. Make a copy of the check.
3. Put a copy of the check in the file.
4. Give the original to the bookkeeper for processing.

Easy enough, therefore making the absence of any file number on the check all the more alarming, right?  The mere fact that there was no file number on this check evidence of some sort of nefarious scheme by the people charged in the Barrera mortgage fraud case, that would be the case if we didn't have a second copy of the check with a handwritten file number on it, the same check that we mentioned we obtained from the states case file.  So which check did the state show this witness during her interview, the one with the handwritten file number or the one without?  Again from her deposition...

Notice how the self righteous, self aggrandizing inept prosecutor interjects with the "no file number" on the check comment?  Thanks for that Mr. Kostrzewski, but we already know there's a problem with the copy of the check that you and Detective Baluja used to manipulate this witnesses testimony, let's keep going...

Again, the witness reaffirms what she's already allegedly told the state and that the copy of the check with no handwriting that the state showed her must have come from the issuer, Bank of America.  Once last bit...

Obviously, the copy of the check shown to the witness isn't going to have any notes, stamps or anything else on it as it's a copy of the check as it was issued not as appeared after it was deposited with all of the associated stamps and notes that would normally appear on cashed check.  So now we have the background of how the state manipulated their star witness in this Bernardo Barrera case to make this statement...

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Remember, it's this testimony that Mr. Kostrzewski used to build his case.  I can only imagine how smug and satisfied with himself prosecutor Kostrzewski must have been at this point in the deposition.  Things are about to go terribly wrong for Mr. Kostrzewski and his star witness, we'll discuss tomorrow...

Enough hypothetical bull$hit!

I've been ranting and raving about prosecutorial misconduct on the part of ASA Bill Kostrzewski for months now in regards to his handling of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case, enough with the hypothetical situations, let's get down to business.  The state built it's case against the defendants on the testimony of two people, the state's victim, Bernardo Barrera and an employee from the attorneys office who closed the transaction in question.  Some of you may remember this witness as the one that Detective Jorge Baluja scared shitless during her interview with the police, so much so that she was literally going to do anything she had to in order to avoid getting arrested.  Great.  Let's take a look at an excerpt from the arrest affidavit and see what this witness had to say...

Interesting statement, I've underlined the important parts in red.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this particular case, this third party cashiers check was the crux of the states case against defendant Martinez and Estefano.  The witness specifically states:

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Some statement, huh?  That statement as it appears in the context of the affidavit almost looks to me like it's supposed to be a quote or her exact testimony.  This statement from the law firm employee that actually closed the transaction seems highly manufactured, too precise, to the point, almost as if it was written by a cop or maybe a prosecutor.  The statement, at least in my opinion is worthless when you consider it was taken from a witness who through their own admission was willing to do or say anything to avoid getting arrested.  According to this statement, this woman who conducted the closing had no idea about the existence of this check, no clue who it belonged to and she goes on to tell us that if indeed she suspected any impropriety she would go ahead and notify the lender.  I for one say that's a crock of shit and further evidence that the statement was created by someone other than the witness.


So what about this check?  Let's take a look at the check as it was provided by the state with the arrest affidavit...

Take your time and take a good look at the check, click on it if you'd like to blow it up for a better look.  As I mentioned, this is the copy that the state provided as part of their discovery obligations and what they included as part of their arrest affidavit.  For some reason or another, someone took the time to redact part of the banks name in the top left hand corner but they decided to leave the banks logo as well as the sensitive account information, nice work guys.  Ostensibly this is the copy of the check the state received as a part of their subpoena to Bank of America who issued the cashier check.  We're told early on that the state subpoenaed Citi Mortgage, Bank of America and the law firm that conducted the closing for copies of their files pertaining to this transaction, all of which had a copy of said cashier check.  Regardless, this is the check that the state used to build this case and most probably the one they showed the employee at the law firm who closed the transaction during her interview.  There's a little problem though.  When I was rummaging through the states case file, I found another copy of this very check, only with a minor difference, a copy that the state didn't use, perhaps a copy that no one was supposed to find...

 
Once again, take a good look and if you need to click on the check to enlarge it.  Aside from the fact that the watermark doesn't show up as prominently on the second copy of the check, does anyone see anything different?  In case you missed it, let me illustrate the difference for you, first a close up from the copy of the check provided in the arrest affidavit...

Now a closeup from the copy of the check that I found in the file...

Aside from the name of the bank being redacted, it's blatantly obvious that the second copy of the check has someones handwriting on it, jump back to that highly injurious statement that was supposedly given by the law firm employee that conducted the closing...

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Anyone wanna guess whose handwriting is on that check?

So you've been charged with a crime and want to defend yourself PART IV!!!

You've been charged and you need to defend yourself, you need all the tools possible with which to do so.  Somehow the cops and prosecutor that got you into this jam aren't being exactly cooperative, they won't hand over the detectives reports pertaining to your case, they take a year to give you statements you need to help prepare your defense and then when they finally do give you something it's damn near worthless.  So here you are a year into this nightmare, unable to prepare a proper defense, unable to get enough background to even prepare a halfway decent deposition, add to the mix the cop who built the case against you is ducking depositions and the prosecutor who's in charge of this mess mysteriously comes down with a case of swine flu the day before a crucial deposition, what are you supposed to do?  I can only imagine the level of frustration someone caught in this mess must be feeling, your legal bills must be mounting, you've been holding your breath for over a year trying to figure out a way to prove your innocence all the while those plea offers the prosecutor keeps pitching your attorneys start sounding sweeter and sweeter.  All of this can go away if you plead out to one of the many charges they've filed against you, they'll give you an adjudication withheld and a few years probation with a menial restitution to be paid in installments.  Once you've lived up to your end of the bargain, the charges go away and you can move on with your life.  Sounds tempting huh?  Sit back and be at the mercy of the state trying to defend yourself or plead out and get it all over with, even if you're innocent.  Sadly enough, this is the path of least resistance and the decision that most people trapped in the criminal justice system take.  I'm not telling you anything new, this is the sad truth about how things work.


But what if you wanted to defend yourself?  What if you're up against a less than honest prosecutor or a dishonest cop?  What if they have exculpatory evidence in their possession that they have withheld from you and your attorney?  We've discussed the landmark Brady V. Maryland case several times and the obligations of a prosecutor to turn over such exculpatory evidence, you'd think no prosecutor in their right mind would want to run afoul of these obligations right?  Yet when I bring up the subject of prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, I always get the "it happens all the time" bullshit.  Fantastic, "it happens all the time", it's the status quo therefore the poor schmuck who's trying to defend himself is fucked.  Even if you have unlimited resources to fund your defense, if you have a prosecutor that's hell bent on hiding evidence then you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

So now what?  The prosecutor is holding all the cards and you're fucked.  The prosecutor is busy interviewing people who've given favorable testimony that discredit the states victim and exonerates you and your codefendants but he decides to hide that evidence from the defense and threatens to arrest the witnesses if they discuss anything that they told the state with any of the defendants.  What kind of shit is that?  Even worse, imagine that there's key physical evidence that the prosecutor is sitting on that would further discredit their star witness and completely exonerate you, but again, the prosecutor decides to bury it.  By now those plea offers are sounding awful sweet aren't they?  If the prosecutor would have done the right thing, your nightmare could have been over, but instead he's chosen to win a conviction by any means necessary.

Hypothetical situation?  Could something like this have happened during the course of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case?  Could there have been some sort of witness testimony that was withheld from the defendants that implicated Mr. Barrera in the fraud therefore making the entire basis of the prosecutions case worthless?  What if there wasn't one witness who implicated Mr. Barrera, what if there was actually two who've given sworn statements directly implicating Mr. Barrera in the mortgage fraud?  I shudder to think what could happen if such testimony did exist and worse what could happen to the people who hid this evidence from the court.  

I wonder if a certain prosecutor reading today's blog post is beginning to get a bit nervous, how does that saying that you're so fond of using go Mr. Kostrzewski?

"You don't know what I know."

Damn straight.  Things are about to start getting good folks, we're about to see just what kind of prosecutor we've been dealing with over the last couple of years... 

Prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski doesn't want anyone to talk to me!

That fucking sucks!  Why tell people not to talk to me Bill?  Whether at the end of an interview or at the end of a subpoena, why can't they talk to me?  If they don't talk to me how am I supposed to find out about all the evidence that you've been hiding for the last two plus years?  If no one were to communicate with me how would I found out about all those pesky subpoenas that you would never want the public to find out about?  If no one were to talk to me how would I find out about those dirty underhanded career ending things that you've done behind your colleagues backs at the state attorneys office?  If no one were to talk to me how could I possibly find out the salacious details of that damn body wire?


Come on Bill, you think all the people that you've asked not to talk about the case were really going to stay quiet considering the magnitude of your misconduct over the last two or so years?  You know better than that.  I'll end this post with a saying that ASA Kostrzewski is so fond of using;

"You don't know what I know"

That's right Bill, you have no idea what I know and that alone should have you scared shitless.

Grand theft, the definition.

 

I've been going through some depo transcripts pertaining to other mortgage fraud cases and the one charge that keeps popping up is the ubiquitous "Grand Theft" charge.  In one of the mortgage fraud cases the fraudsters were convicted of Grand Theft even though no money had ever changed hands, this seemed odd to me so I looked up the definition of Grand Theft as it appears in Florida Law...

812.014  Theft.--
(1)  A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a)  Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b)  Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. 

So it's not only stealing something that makes you guilty of Grand Theft, you can also be charged if you "endeavor to obtain" the property of another. As I understand it, as it pertains to the mortgage and real estate fraud cases that we've been discussing, the very act of executing a fraudulent purchase contract whether it's for an inflated sales price or to be used in the commission of a mortgage fraud constitutes the crime of Grand Theft. With that in mind, if a fraudulent purchase contract was drafted and executed by both the buyer and seller for a transaction that didn't end up closing, are the people who executed said contract guilty of Grand Theft?


We're going to be discussing this at length over the next few weeks as it relates to another mortgage fraud case involving our favorite Assistant State Attorney and believe it or not someone named Baluja! Till then, enjoy your weekend...

Did anyone catch the significance of the interview with the realtor?

Did anyone understand the significance of the realtors statement in Tuesdays post?  In case you missed it, we had tracked down and spoken to the realtor who represented Maxine Andrews (the little old widow) in the sale of the home located at 3390 Oak Avenue to John Arthur Romney who later used the home as the vehicle with which to defraud Citi Mortgage for nearly $400,000.  In her discussions with Mr. Romney, he advised that he wanted to buy more homes in the area and that he was trying to buy the home across the street from Maxine's.  So what's the deal with the home across the street from Maxine's?  Could he have been referring to 3379 Oak Avenue?

Or maybe he was referring to 3375 Oak Avenue?

Both located across the street, both involved in massive mortgage fraud schemes and consequently both are currently in foreclosure.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But what about that other statement about "wanting to buy more homes in the area"?  Could he have been referring to the other homes in west Coconut Grove that were involved in millions of dollars worth of mortgage fraud?  Maybe like the ones that we discussed in the past (here, here and here)?  


So what do we got?  Was this conversation between the realtor and Mr. Romney just an instance of Mr. Romney running his mouth or a Freudian slip admitting to other mortgage frauds that he and or his associates were involved in?  While we have no proof of Mr. Romney being directly involved in these other mortgage frauds, by his own admission he certainly had knowledge of them and who was behind them, more on that later.  In the mean time, we'll be discussing another botched mortgage fraud case courtesy of ASA Bill Kostrzewski and we'll discuss the worlds worst forged check case.

The Straw Buyer interview number one...

We mentioned last week that we had sought out people involved in the Barrera mortgage fraud and asked them a few questions regarding the home located at 3390 Oak Avenue which was used by John Arthur Romney to defraud Citi Mortgage out of nearly $400,000.  The first person that we decided to track down was the realtor who sold Mr. Romney the home for $185,000 which he later flipped to Mr. Barrera or someone posing as Mr. Barrera for $600,000.  After digging through the records we found that the realtor was one Betty Wilburn.

Betty tells us that her client was Maxine Andrews, the little old lady that sold the home to John Romney, Maxine's husband had died and she remained at the house on Oak Avenue after his death.  The property was listed through Mrs Wilburn and was appraised at approximately $300,000; however Maxine was fed up and tired of being in that area.  Maxine was anxious to leave the area which she subsequently did and moved up north.  Fair enough.  She went on to say that a man named John Romney whose name she recalled because of the similarity to then presidential candidate Mitt Romney came by to visit Maxine regarding her home.  Maxine subsequently contacted Betty and stated that a man named John had knocked on her door and said that he would buy the house for cash.  John (Romney) offered Maxine $185,000 for her home, Betty tried to convince Maxine not to accept the offer since the home was appraised for more but Maxine insisted that she wanted to sell the house and get out of town and that after being on the market for nearly a year, this was the only offer they had ever received on the home.  Otherwise Maxine said that she would abandon the house and let it go into foreclosure.


So far so good right?  Nothing earth shattering here, widow wants to sell her house in a bad area and get out of dodge, there's a buyer standing at the door with $185,000 in cash and the realtor wants the seller to hold out for more money.  Here's were it gets good, Mrs. Wilburn recalls having a conversation with John Romney during which time he advised that he wanted to buy more homes in the area and that he was trying to buy the home across the street from Maxine's. 

Did anyone catch that?  We'll discuss tomorrow...

Christopher Columbus the con man?

Here we are on this quasi holiday, some government offices are open, some are closed, some schools are open, some are closed, WTF kind of holiday is this?  Perhaps one befitting a man that history has suggested to be a con man?  Last Columbus day we discussed the commonly known fact that despite what we were taught in school, Christopher Columbus was not the first person to discover the Americas and now we learn that he was a fraud as well, from Professor Emeritus at Kent State University, Dr Kwame Nantambu...

"...Christopher Columbus was a smooth, slick, deceiving operator. He had many aliases; he was a con-man. In Italy, he was known as Cristoforo Colombo; in Portugal, he used thename Cristovao Colom; in Spain, he was Cristo Colombo."

Intriguing, why would this Columbus have so many aliases?  We're going to discover over the next few days, that one of the central figures in our blog has also developed a new alias for himself in order to get out from under his criminal history and to create a new persona for himself, stay tuned...

Other homes in the area...

Before we get to the interviews we mentioned yesterday, I think we need to revisit some of the homes that we discussed last summer that surround the Oak Avenue home that was at the heart of the Barrera mortgage fraud case.  The first two are particularly important since they are directly across the street from the home used in the Barrera mortgage fraud.

How can we forget 3379 Oak Ave?  Last sale December 2008, sales price $397,000 or $616.00 PER SQUARE FOOT!


Or just next door, 3375 Oak Ave, last sale date September 2008, sales price $490,000 or $425.00 PER SQUARE FOOT!


Around the corner...

3551 Frow Ave, last sale May 2008, sales price $500,000 or $438.00 PER SQUARE FOOT!


and just a few doors away...

3309 William Ave, last sale June 2008, sales price $450,000 or $511.00 PER SQUARE FOOT!


One more...
3146 Hibiscus St, last sale June 2008, sale price $490,000 or $471.00 PER SQUARE FOOT!



We discussed these transactions in detail last summer (here, here and here), we've learned recently they may have much more in common.  Notice all these homes that we mentioned were within one square mile of each were all purchased within months of each other.  Coincidence or brilliantly engineered scam to loot this poor area of Coconut Grove?  We'll discuss on Monday...

The Straw Buyer is conducting interviews!

That's right, we've hit the streets over the last few days and have actually interviewed some of the people involved in the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud scam that weren't interviewed by the police or the defense attorneys.  Stay tuned, interesting stuff coming up...

Even multi billionaire drug kingpins need mortgages!

So I'm sitting in an attorneys reception area yesterday and I start chatting with a middle aged Hispanic woman sitting next to me.  Our conversation ranges from politics to real estate and the woman let's me know that she used to live on North Bay road in Miami Beach back in the early 80's, I didn't think anything of it, she get's called in and we end our conversation.  No big deal, just idle chit chat, a little later my appointment comes up and the attorney asks me if I knew who the woman that I was talking to was to which I reply "no".  Turns out the woman was one of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar's  favorite mistresses.  YIKES!

This encounter piqued my curiosity, so after a little research I found that the home on North Bay road that the woman was referring to was actually Escobar's waterfront home located at 5860 North Bay Road that he purchased in March of 1980.  

Cool.  I wondered, how do people like Escobar handle mundane real estate transactions like this?  From the Miami Dade County Clerks office we find the deed for the purchase of the home oddly enough in Mr. Escobar's own name...

Deed for Pablo Escobars Home at 5860 North Bay Road

Bizarre that someone of Escobar's standing would actually have a home in his own name, but what's even stranger is that Mr. Escobar had a mortgage on his home...

Deed for Pablo Escobars Home at 5860 North Bay Road

True to form though, just three months later Mr. Escobar pays off his mortgage as evidenced by this satisfaction of mortgage recorded with the clerks office...

Pablo Escobar Satisfaction of Mortgage
Cool trivia if nothing else and a perfect example of how you never know who you might be sitting next to in the Magic City...

Another anniversary...

Depending on how you look at it, yesterday was the three year anniversary of the Miami Dade County Mortgage Fraud Task force's first arrests or the two year anniversary of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud arrests.  So where are we at three years later?  We discovered last week that the we're knee deep in a foreclosure fraud crisis where it's not the borrowers that are committing fraud but the banks through submitting fake and forged documents to the courts.  Does anyone think that the members of the Miami Dade County Mortgage Fraud task force is working over time to prepare cases against these guys?  We also learned a few weeks back that the City of Miami Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff may have committed mortgage fraud, does anyone believe that the people over at the mortgage fraud task force are busy investigating these allegations and preparing a case against him?  Don't hold your breath.


So here we are three years since the inception of the Mortgage Fraud task force that was supposed to be a model for the rest of the nation and what's the impression we're left with?  Based on everything I've seen the only impression I'm left with is selective enforcement of the law.

Massive amounts of mortgage related fraud, where's the guy in the white hat?

This article in the New York Times that chronicles the other side of mortgage related fraud got me so pissed off that I almost fell of the toilet this morning.  From the Times...

GMAC has acknowledged legal missteps in processing mortgages, and JPMorgan Chase has acknowledged the possibility of missteps, and both have suspended all foreclosures in the 23 states where they need a court’s approval. That’s 56,000 in the case of Chase alone; GMAC declined to provide a number.
Attorneys general in half a dozen states are demanding action or opening investigations. The Treasury Department said Thursday it was asking regulators to look into “these troubling developments.” 

The root of the problem is massive amounts of fraudulent and forged documents that the banks are producing to speed up the foreclosure process.  The Times tiptoes around the problem by calling the alarming amount of fraud committed by the lenders and their lawyers "missteps".  Again, from the Times article...

Defense lawyers say the disclosures are symptomatic of the carelessness, if not outright fraud, that lenders have been exhibiting for years in their rush to file cases. Many necessary documents have disappeared, with defense lawyers saying the lenders often do not even have standing to foreclose.

Documents disappearing?  Doesn't that sound familiar Detective Baluja?  Could all these missing documents be sitting next to all your missing documents relating to the Barrera fraud that mysteriously walked out of your case file?  More...

In a number of pending cases in Florida, defense lawyers there said, GMAC has already withdrawn affidavits. The lawyers said they would try to have the cases thrown out for possible fraud, although they acknowledged that might be difficult. 

Oh no shit?  So how do all these lenders and their fine attorneys explain what's going on?  You'll be shocked...

In depositions taken by lawyers for homeowners, executives at GMAC and Chase said they or their teams signed 10,000 or more affidavits and related documents a month. That did not give them time to review the cases. 

No kidding?  How about that ASA Kostrzewski?  They didn't have the time to read the documents or their boilerplate content?  Are you going to be staying up till four in the morning to prepare an arrest affidavit for these instances of fraud like you did the Barrera Mortgage Fraud case?  Yeah right.  The chances of our favorite veteran economic crimes prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski doing anything against these types of fraud are slim to none.

I got to get away from the computer for now, this story got me so worked up that I'm about to throw the monitor out the window.  We'll discuss next week.