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...