sd main logo
Credit Union Defrauds Widow
Menu

Fraudulent Statement Exposed

False Facts Misrepresent Default

Boulder Dam Credit Union used a sophisticated fraud to steal million from an elderly member over the course of (3) years.  The crime turned on a clever misrepresentation of the deficiency that caused the default.  Well concealed; the fraud once seen becomes impossible to miss.  On this page we discuss the source and substance of the specific statement that insiders used to steal millions.

Notice of Breach a FRAUD!

Notice of Breach recorded July 2014 and May 2016 publish the identical description of the deficiency causing the default of an obligation secured by the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust.  HOWEVER, the statement that purports to describe the deficiency is a fraud.
Source of Fraudulent Statement - Notice of Breach
Source of Fraudulent Statement - Notice of Breach

Statement of Material Fact, Made  Knowingly

The Court accepts documents from the county recorder as true in every manner, except for the truth of the statements made on the document.  Therefore, the Court accepts as true that the Notice describes the default as stated, but not that the description is true.

Nevada law provides a “material” “misrepresentation” made “knowingly” to be the core elements for finding fraud.  

  • The fraudulent description, 
  • made under oath (“knowing”) and
  • required by law (“material”);
  • proven to “misrepresent“ demand  to member;
  • irrefutably proves a violation (NRS 205.372).

Description of Deficiency - Fraudulent Statement
Description of Deficiency - Fraudulent Statement

Board Never Approved Payments Claimed

BDCU Authorized Representative, Patricia Butler published the same description  of the default on both the July 2014 and May 2016 Notice of Breach.  Identical words used to describe the default recorded (23) months apart make different statements of fact about what the member owes. Considered together with the declarations by Estes, recorded before and after Butler’s descriptions, reveals an ongoing fraud knowingly perpetrated by Butler and Estes.  A fraud every bit as much a betrayal of the public trust as a malicious theft that exploited the elderly.

  • July 2014 Notice by Butler claims (5) x $13,580/month payments
  • May 2016 Notice by Butler claims (27) x $13,580/month payments.
  • The March 2015 Declaration by Estes; claimed (11) x $13,580 in arrears
  • The September 2016 Declaration by Estes; claimed (30) x $13,580 arrears
  • The August 2017 Declaration by Estes claims just (4) x $13,580.36

NO $13,580/month payments exists after June 10, 2014; none!

Default Description From July 2014 and August 2016 Notice of Breach
Default Description From July 2014 and August 2016 Notice of Breach

Terms Denied the Month Before

Notice of Breach Must Describe Deficiency

The credit union describes the default of the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust on the May 2016 Notice of Breach, worded identical as it was described in the July 2014 Notice of Breach.  Both notices reference a secured obligation of the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust; which secured repayment according to agreed upon Terms found in NOTE_1 and the (36) NOTE_1 payments with terms modified by NOTE_3 (NOTE_2 modified (11) NOTE_1 payments all complete).  DOWNLOAD NOTICE OF BREACH
Credit Union Mortgage Fraud