Next, Mrs. Bratton’s public defender said he wanted to direct Mrs. Benight’s to the notes at the bottom of page 61. There are notations at 8:09 and one at 8:29 on March 3 of 2009. Mrs. Benight stated that she sees it. He then said the ENTRY says PIABUS or an acronym, but for that entry the name says PIABUS. She confirmed that she saw that. Mrs. Benight was then asked about the entry which talks about ordering a BPO, full interior BPO. She was then asked if that stood for BROKERS PRICE. Mrs. Benight stated that it usually does in general. She then stated that they use terminology BPO in this case so it would have been not just like a drive by, but a full interior walk through by the broker.
Mrs. Benight was then asked by Mr. Isaeff, so basically this means you’re asking a broker to walk through the property and give you an idea of what it might be worth if somebody is going to purchase? She answered YES.
Next, Mrs. benight was directed to look at page 59, which is below. Specifically, at the bottom of page 59 with the date March 2009. Mrs. Benight acknowledged seeing it. She was then asked about the entry name SYSTEM. He then asked what does that mean where there is an entry from the name SYSTEM? Mrs. Benight replied that the contact history notes are sometimes pulled from another system called Black Night, when this was put into place, it was at that point in time called LPS. This is LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, the same business that was federally indicted. All they did was switch their name. This is a common theme and move that illegal mortgage companies or lenders do. They get caught breaking the law, re brand, and keep breaking the law.
Mrs. Benight went on to say that it’s where our vendors, because our vendors do not have access to our actual contact history, they put these notes into this Black Night system. It’s the way we communicate with attorneys and third-party vendors. They put notes which are called intercoms into that system and then they pull through and post it into our contact history notes.
Then Mrs. benight was told by Ms. Bratton’s public defender: I DONT WANT TO PHRASE THIS THE WRONG WAY BECAUSE I DONT WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE I AM BEING CRITICAL. YOU’RE ALLOWING OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK DIRECTLY FOR SPS TO POST NOTES DIRECTLY INTO THE FILES IN THE VENDOR CONNECTED WITH A PARTICULAR FILE?
Mrs. Benight replied, they work under SPS’S direct supervision and direction. They’re not employees as in an employee getting a paycheck, however, we do pay them. They work fully under any direction we are giving them. It’s just that most times this is their way of posting things they feel is relevant to the file.
Mrs. Benight then stated, a conversation we don’t agree with what they’re saying, you will see other notes saying, no, don’t proceed this way, this is what you need to do. This would be from an SPS directive employee.
Ms. Bratton’s public defender stated that he thinks he understands. He then asked if these are still communications that you’re depending on in this course of your business? She replied with a YES.
Mrs. Benight was then directed to the top of page 60 below. Mrs. Benight was then asked about the name TERRY BOREN. She replied that she sees the entry. Ms. Bratton’s public defender then asked about the notes on this entry that state instructions talking about proceeding with a lockout and it mentions, we don’t even know what the property is worth, I’m going to order another BPO to help determine the value. It talks about having the valuation department look as it and give us the value. She confirmed seeing this.
Next, Mrs. Benight is directed to page 56 and 57 which are above and below. At the bottom of page 56 there are some notes from Carbar on 3/27/09 at 11:08 in the morning and it goes to top of page 57. It mentions that they locked out the FO and two daughters. He then asked if FO meant former owner. Mrs. Benight replies YES.
At the very end it says, just got off phone with broker and he is claiming fraud was committed in the original loan. He then asked Mrs. Benight if there were any notes in there about who the broker is? Mrs. Benight replied that with this particular entry she did not know who the broker was.
Mr. Isaeff then said Well it sounds like there may have been somebody else that that this person who made the note talked to, or put the note in, about talking to some broker about fraud. Mrs. Benight replied yes. YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM THAT THE FORMER OWNER BARBARA BRATTON WANTS TO COMPLETE A BUY BACK OF THE PROPERTY FOR MARKET VALUE. Mrs. Benight confirmed this.
Notice below that you see someone say I don’t know about the NAACP, media, and politicians are going to do with this case. I doubt they will do anything, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.
Us at RHEMA have one question about this. If SPS is not breaking the law or doing anything wrong, why would they say this or even think it?
Mr. Isaeff then asked a question about page 56 above. When you look at the top of page 56 there is a number of lines that the date for December 9th and December 10th. But when you come over to the notes IT SAYS REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. What was it there that was redacted? Mrs. Benight stated that would have been communication with our attorney regarding the file. She then said it would have been anything that SPS considered attorney client privilege that was redacted from the notes.
