By Audrey Levine, Staff Writer
A warrant was issued Wednesday for the arrest of James Williamson, 59, of Vliet Drive, who is being charged with second-degree attempted theft by deception, fourth-degree false swearing and two counts of fourth-degree forgery.
The charges came after an investigation launched when Somerset County Prosecutor Wayne Forrest received a letter Sept. 5, 2007, alleging Mr. Williamson had engaged in perjury, false swearing and mortgage fraud as his property was being foreclosed.
An investigation by the prosecutor’s office Special Investigations Unit allegedly found that, on March 18, 2005, Mr. Williamson and his wife, Clara, executed a mortgage note through Ameriquest Mortgage Co. for $483,000, on a residence in Hillsborough.
This note, Mr. Forrest said, was to be paid in monthly installments of $4,710.33, starting on May 1, 2005.
According to Mr. Forrest, on Nov. 1, the money was not paid, and it was later found that subsequently, 11 payments of $4,710.33, as well as nine payments of $4,868.98, were not paid.
On March 1, 2006, Mr. Forrest said, the mortgage was moved for judgment against Mr. and Ms. Williamson, and for foreclosure, possession of the premises and damages. A default judgment of $514,179.21 was entered by the Superior Court against the Williamsons on July 24, 2006, and a judge ordered the residence to be sold during a sheriff’s sale.
But on May 21, 2007, the Williamsons filed a motion of stay for the sale, but were rejected by the court. They then filed a notice of motion to vacate foreclosure judgment, Mr. Forrest said. To support this, he said, Mr. Williamson submitted certification, dated June 6, 2007, and claiming that, in fact, all payments were current.
To support this certification, Mr. Forrest said, Mr. Williamson submitted what he claimed were copies of canceled checks paid to the mortgagee totaling $93,815.13; a bank statement from Commerce Bank from May 5, 2006; as well as a letter from the bank corroborating his statement about the checks. The letter, however, did not have a name or phone number for a contact at the bank.
According to Mr. Forrest, the checks did not have a processed stamp on them, but Mr. Williamson claimed that was because the checks were deposited electronically, so the stamp was not needed.
The prosecutor’s office’s Special Investigations Unit obtained actual bank statements for the Williamsons’ account, and found that the document submitted by Mr. Williamson was fraudulent. A comparison of the statements from the same dates in May 2005 and 2006 showed that all charges, but one, were identical. The statement from May 11, 2005 found a debit on May 10 for a loan payment of $4,707.33, and the May 11, 2006, statement showed a loan payment debited on April 27, 2006 for the same amount.
In addition, Mr. Forrest said, it was found that the charges on the May 2006 statement were not in chronological order, but representatives from Commerce Bank stated that standard banking practice is to list all deposits and withdrawals in chronological order.
After contacting the vendors listed in the bank statement, Mr. Forrest said they found that the listed debit card charges occurred during 2005, not 2006, as Mr. Williamson had claimed to the court.
According to Mr. Forrest, Mr. Williamson submitted the fraudulent checks in an effort to prove that he was current with his mortgage payments. If the court had believed this, the Williamsons would not have had to pay the mortgages, Mr. Forrest said.
Mr. Williamson notified the prosecutor’s office through an attorney that he will surrender to officers Friday.

