Justice in America: Systematic Document Forgery and Fabrication Yield One Criminal Plea Bargain

The Department of Justice and the state of Missouri have each announced criminal plea bargains with one Lorraine Brown, former chief executive of DocX, the Lender Processing subsidiary best known for its price sheet for fabricating the mortgage documents a servicer, or frankly, anyone would need to claim they had standing to foreclose on your home. Funny how that particular DocX product was mentioned no where in the plea deals.

This admission of guilt by Brown for wire and mail fraud on the federal level and fraudulent and forged document filings in Missouri now allows the Obama Administration to claim it has sent another “executive” to jail. And the bizarre progress of this case was that the Missouri attorney general had sued both Brown and LPS, and you’d expect them to cut a deal with Brown to go after the bigger target, LPS. But it’s likely Brown was not very sophisticated; she apparently went to an interview with the FBI without the advice of counsel. Rule number one is don’t lie to the FBI, and the document release Tuesday show that Brown did. And her attorneys let LPS get in front of her. The firm paid $2 million in fines to Missouri and “cooperated” in going after small fry Brown (rather than the bigger fry of LPS’ clients). Nicely played.

Brown admitted guilt to perpetrating a six-year scheme, from 2003 to 2009 to forge and falsify over a million signatures, including now-infamous practices such as “surrogate signing”, in which other employees, typically temps, would forge the signatures of robosigners. The federal penalties are up to five years in prison plus $250,000 in fines; the Missouri penalties re two to three years in prison.

Several things are striking about this deal. First is that it appears that the Missouri suit against Brown goaded the Feds to join. It’s hardly unheard of for state regulators to embarrass their Federal counterparts into action, and the DoJ probably could not afford to sit out a successful prosecution on its beat, particularly after all the noise the Obama Administration has made about its new, improved anti mortgage fraud efforts. But that makes the second item more striking: how the “statement of facts” presents Brown as deceiving Lender Processing Services about her illegal actions. Brown is thus a rogue executive whose misdeeds presumably don’t have bigger implications for LPS or the industry. It’s nauseating to see the filings take that position and contain statements like this:

When hiring DocX to sign documents, servicers typically issued special corporate resolutions delegating document execution authority to specific, authorized, and trained personnel at DocX. The DocX employees who were given express signing authority from DocX’s clients and who, as represented by Brown, were purportedly trained to ensure that the clients’ documents were properly created, signed, and notarized were
called “Authorized Signers.” These documents were then generally recorded by DocX
with the appropriate local property recorders’ offices throughout the country.

The reference to “notarized” is the big tell that the supposedly proper procedures that Brown was violating were also abuses. A notarized document requires that the signer have personal knowledge of the matters attested to, such as the principal amount of the mortgage or the amount the borrower owes. You can’t simply go though some legal hoops an d give a third party at a completely different organization “signing authority.” They ALSO have to have the requisite personal knowledge. The knowledge requirement makes it impossible in most cases to have someone outside the organization act as a proxy for the party in charge. This whole procedure is a sham, yet the bland language of the plea bargain documents treats it as perfectly legitimate. [Update/correction: the issue here is that servicers outsourced BOTH the signing of affidavits and the related notarization to firms like DocX. I incorrectly bundled both under “notarization” but these are distinct activities. The famed robosigners and surrogate signers were typically signing affidavits; the notaries were simply an additional component of this bogus process. Apologies for the sloppiness].

Indeed, we’ve had explicit “see no evil” statements. From the Palm Beach Post writeup of the plea deal:

In the Florida inspector general’s report, the state’s top economic crimes boss Richard Lawson said the practice of “surrogate signing” is not forgery because it was approved by the company and forgery requires an intent to defraud.

Huh? At a minimum, the DocX client was being defrauded of the service he was contracting for, that of having his authorized agent, and only his authorized agent, sign documents. All fees paid when surrogate signers were used were part of a scheme to provide client less service than they thought they were getting (and that’s before we get to the resulting frauds on end parties, like courts, borrowers, county recorders’ offices). This simply shows that there is no will to clean up this problem; they’d rather put band-aids on gunshot wounds than be required to operate.

In fact, what Brown is guilty of is simply taking the bad practices in the industry to their logical conclusion. After the robosiging scandal broke, banks kept claiming it was mere paperwork “errors” or “sloppiness” when in fact what they were doing was quite deliberately vitiating procedures that go back to the 1677 Statute of Frauds to make sure that documents are signed by legitimate parties. The notion that you can have someone removed from your organization who is paid a mere $15 an hour merrily sign on your behalf is a travesty. None of these managers would ever delegate authority like that over their checkbook, yet they were doing that cavalierly with the single most important asset of most families. Brown’s crime was that she was sloppy about the form of this exercise in form over substance. Having obviously different versions of the same person’s signature floating about raised the question of who was really executing these documents.

Notice also that the officialdom makes this case all about the paperwork, so as to divert attention from the fact that these procedures allowed parties who hadn’t complied with the well established procedures for transferring notes and liens and for foreclosing to circumvent those and other requirements, such as servicing in the best interests of the investors (which would have required servicers to offer more mortgage mods). Notice the language of assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer:

She was responsible for more than a million fraudulent documents entering the system, directing company employees to forge and falsify documents relied on by property recorders, title insurers, and others.

In case you have any doubts, this tells you that this case does not signal a change in Team Obama’s posture towards the banks. There is not a single mention of harm to homeowners, save through erosion of public confidence. There’s no mention of actual harm, like wrongful foreclosures (can’t admit that happens) or title risk to buyers of foreclosed properties.

It’s also hard to buy LPS’s claims that it was shocked that Brown was up to no good. It had to know what her production numbers were; they were the basis of her revenues. The notorious document fabrication term sheet was public. It’s hard to imagine that Brown didn’t tell her superiors that she was improving productivity of her unit. Any executive worth their salt would be monitoring trends in Brown’s unit (such as costs per types of services). And LPS did due diligence at the time of the 2005 acquisition of her firm. They would have gone over how it operated in some detail. If she kept wringing out productivity improvements in what was presumably already a lean operation, I’d certainly want to know, if nothing else, out of curiosity, since this is a highly manual operation, and thus not an obvious candidate for cost reduction.

It’s also clear that the industry engages in even worse abuses on a routine basis. As we wrote earlier this year:

One thing that foreclosure defense attorneys have seen as a huge red flag of servicer chicanery is the use of allonges. An allonge is a separate piece of paper used for endorsements that is required by the Uniform Commercial Code to be “affixed” to the note and used for endorsements when there is no more space left on the note for signatures. Allonges were pretty much never seen until the robosigning scandal, since all the space on a note (meaning the back and the margins) can be used for endorsements. But they have a funny way of showing up out of nowhere and solving all the problems with a particular foreclosure. Of course, if an allonge really was “affixed,” it shouldn’t be possible for it to materialize out of nowhere.

We’ve even come across a firm that advertises “scrubbing” loan files and discussed how it fabricated allonges. Oh, and that firm, SolomonEdwards, is also one of the servicer review firms, meaning it things this sort of chicanery is perfectly kosher.

The mortgage settlement made clear that the officialdom is going to pretend that forgeries and fabrications are no big deal, even though there’s widespread deed fraud in Philadelphia, continuing appearance of bogus documents in foreclosures, and continuing state level challenges to MERS. No, PR and ignoring the problem has worked just fine, so there’s no reason for the Administration to change course.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Lynn Szymoniak

    Yes – who bought these millions of documents? Mostly, mortgage-backed trusts. Why were they bought? Because the trusts were missing the real documents and the banks figured the courts would never notice or care if they did notice. Who paid the $60 million to DocX for the manufactured documents?
    Investors in mortgage-backed trusts paid and continue to pay as services file new, better fraudulent documents. What was the remediation process the DocX brags about? Nothing that involves restitution to investors or homeowners or even notifications to courts and county recorders. There sure is a lot of work yet to be done here.

    1. nonclassical

      …are “documents” correct definition?…seems Wall $treet banks sent “securitized mortgages”, sometimes apparently already “leveraged”, to offshore
      subsidiaries to be broken into parts and pieces known as “tranches”, there to be
      combined with parts and pieces of student loan debt, car loan debt, credit card debt, etc; combination formulating “mortgage BACKED “securities”, then rated by raters banks were paying (buying off) “AA”, or “AAA”, then sold to investors all over world…(prior to CDS-hedging against own “products”)..banks-even fanni-freddi now returning bad “MBS” to banks “guaranteed” at taxpayer expense, to the current tune of $40 billion per month (FED) QE3….

      bushbama kicking can down road-lesson learned from bushitter end of administration-Iraq…(“surge”)

    2. Susan the other

      Dear ms Szymoniak: hard name to type; You have fought this for years and you are legally true… The financial industry of the US and probably the UK and marginally the EZ (enough to kill the EZ!) Is so fukaked it is now trying to ignore DocX. Please. DOCX is the keystone. If DocX falls, it all falls. Including the Mittster (who has big interest in LPS) and all the other thieves destroying America. THe great fraudsters. And DocX wants us all to think that they are the “agents” of LPS (or whoever, most of whom we can not imagine) and that DocX is doing legit business, signing docs they know are true. Oh, Please, dear God. Please..Fuckmekpleasewithanepiphanydreamtoput me out of my responsibility as a citizen. This is just not true. You goniffs. GET OUT OF MY FACE. I’m reallly starting to hate your guts.

      1. Susan the other

        Oh dear. This just proves I can’t drink and comment at the same time. Let alone dress a turkey and make a sweet potato pie. I apologize for this incoherent comment. It certainly was not meant against Ms. Szymoniak. She has been a leader against the fraud and I admire her. Here’s to a happy Thanksgiving. I’ll wait until I’m totally clear headed to make any more comments! Cheers.

    3. Wendy Alison Nora

      I appreciate the turn of phrase: “servicers file new, better fraudulent documents.” I have one case with 3 attempted assignments of mortgage to the securitization trust, one created after the homeowners’ bankruptcy was filed (to try to perfect the lien by preferential transfer.) That case started in state court with an unendorsed note and no mortgage assignment. Now, of course, we have a note “endorsed in blank” by a rubber stamp. Almost all of my cases have two versions of the mortgage note. I only have one with the Countrywide/BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP/Bank of America double rubber stamp of Michele Sjolander and Laura Meder, but Michele Sjolander testified that there was no quality control for the use of the rubber stamp. Anyone could use it, without knowing what entity they were representing by executing the documents.
      Whatever the homeowner argues in defense against the foreclosure with forged documents, new forged documents are shamelessly created. Didn’t like our last set of forged documents? Do you like these better? How about these? I will be in a proceeding soon in which the servicers’ attorney has been ordered to produce the original note. She says she has it. That should be interesting because the original note is in my file. It was sent back to my client in 2008 when she believes she paid the mortgage in full.

      1. Wendy Alison Nora

        @EH-I respectfully disagree. If we do not at least demand lip service, we are letting the fraud enterprise control the message entirely. We all know that how devastating the collapse of the Rule of Law has been. We must take whatever action we can, repeatedly, to insist that the issue of rampant crimes in the civil court and land title systems be exposed. The alternative is the continuation of the global corporatist crime spree. I understand outrage fatigue. Outrage fatigue=demoralization. The criminals count on it to demoralize their opposition.
        Here are 4 steps to destroy a nation and by nation I mean a country’s legal institutions:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC48pGrsXiE (recorded before the fall of the Soviet Union)
        It is true that the petition process is a weak response to overwheming destabilization and the ongoing crisis. I prefer to resist normalization of the courts and government agencies serving a criminal cartel, whether it claims to be communism, fascism, corporatism or some other -ism. Peoples’ homes must not be confiscated (stolen) with forged documents in support of false claims of indebtedness through the judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process. That, at least, must be considered fundamental. What is the alternative system? I suggest it will be feudalism descending into barbarism.

        1. Wendy Alison Nora

          Interesting. One has to create an account with the White House webmaster to sign the petition. I choose not to do this. I know that I am already under surveillance (we all are) but I prefer not to create a White House “account.” That leaves us with paper petition circulation, letter writing, and other forms of making our concerns heard. Even the process of petitioning can be demoralizing.

  2. nonclassical

    …bushbama currently “satisfying” bank phony foreclosure-deed malady…banks likely waiting for Chris Christie, 2016, “cure”…anyone asked banks for title-deed, paying up front for “foreclosed” property?…

  3. ambrit

    This is a huge social time bomb waiting to go off. Our culture enshrined the concept of ‘Private Property Rights,’ and has been doing so for hundreds of years. When the general public wakes up to the gutting of said right, and realizes where this leaves them, the small free holders, the overall social contract will be ‘renegotiated.’ That’s the real danger here. Once again so called elites are being their own worst enemies. No parasite worth its salt kills its host.

  4. LeeAnne

    ‘Securitization” is the sacred cow of American jurisprudence. They’ve somehow gotten word from on high that their income and status depends on upholding SECURITIZATION ABOVE THE LAW. The COURTS, totally CORRUPT, therefore, deserve NO respect.

    Anyone in that system, police, military, goverment employee, people working in public service expecting RESPECT know where to look for having lost it.

    1. JamesW

      Excellent point, securitization is the ultimate cost driver.

      The reason for the high cost of everything, as almost everything is routinely securitized.

      And the other sacrosanct fraud item: naked swaps.

      The US Treasury refuses to allow anyone to screw around with their favorite fraud instrument, naked swaps.

  5. fiscalliberal

    I wonder if anyone in the media has her customer list and would follow up with public exposure on how her informaiton was used. The devil is in the details and the magnitude of users of her services

      1. Wendy Alison Nora

        RE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113967151/Exhibit-6-2
        The pie chart shows 75.47% of the DOCX documents as believed to have benefitted Deustche Bank, America’s Home Servicing Company and Wells Fargo Bank. Deustche Bank funded Wells Fargo’s loan originations, America’s Home Servicing Company is a Wells Fargo trade name and has no corporate existence of its own. I have been working on a theory that Deustche Bank actually owns Wells Fargo Bank but does not want to disclose the takeover. I believe the takeover began with the sale of Wells Fargo to Norwest Bank. Norwest Bank took the Wells Fargo name. Deutsche Bank may have funded the takeover because Wells Fargo was insolvent, Norwest was collapsing under the weight of “third world” loans.
        I suspect that, despite any significant bank regulations remaining in the USA, Deustche Bank, AG (the German parent of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company) does not want to disclose the extent of its holding of US assets in stock or bonds in the Norwest-Wells Fargo enterprise. It is just a theory at this point, but I have seen too much evidence of Deutsche Bank’s involvement in foreclosures emanating from nothing-backed trusts with forged documents, many of them being fronted by Wells Fargo as servicer. There may be a limit on the value of US holdings by foreign nation’s financial institutions which has given rise to the Deutsche Bank “as trustee” deception. I am looking into this. The pie chart is chilling, even though it uses data from just one county in Florida.

  6. fresno dan

    Let me amend Upton Sinclair’s famous saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it”
    “It is difficult to get a prosecutor to prosecute a financier who finances elections”

  7. fresno dan

    “This whole procedure is a sham,..”
    You besmirch shams! I’ve known shams, and this was not sinmply a sham…it was sham inside of a swidle, wrapped in fraud, cloaked in illegality, suckeled by bribery (AKA campaing donations), birthed by corruption, and perpetrated by dishonor.

  8. steelhead23

    I note that real estate trusts and companies that invest in them continue to perform reasonably well (they have lost value but still pay high dividends). It appears that the financial industry believes that the liabilities are manageable. Back in 09, I was convinced that these folks would lose their shirts. Today, I am less certain. It would appear that even when faced with massive foreclosure risk, early buy-out risk due to ZIRP, and with full recognition of the frauds in the system, investors, bit investors, still see MBS as rock solid investments. I am dazed.

    1. JamesW

      “It appears that the financial industry believes that the liabilities are manageable.”

      No, it appears that the Fed is will be buying up toxic mortgage loans for the forseeable future.

      1. Sharon

        Agreed and pensioners don’t understand that their pensions are gone yet. Wait till that bombshell hits.

        The PBGC has a $34B deficit this year, the largest in its 38-year history.

    2. Yves Smith Post author

      REITS are different than securitizations. They own income producing real estate, which is stuff like office buildings, malls, and “multifamily” units, meaning apartment complexes. And they usually have a focus, overweight either a product or a geography.

      Some people think commercial has bottomed, and rentals are doing really well. REITs are a good way to play bullish views on the economy, since they are levered, but not hugely so.

      Securitizations are the single family home market, completely different and not represented in REITs, although you can be sure we’ll see some single family home REITs in the next year or two.

  9. Sue Em

    My loan was securitized, robo-signed and ended up with the Bank that now denies owning the loan. Two court hearings and two diffenent statements from the Bank’s attorney as to whom owns our loan. Where in the world do my monthly payments go? This has gotten all out of control!

    1. JamesW

      No, it hasn’t “gotten out of control” – this was the way they designed it. Only an utter and complete fool would still be accepting Wall Street’s PR about it just happened and unexpected outcomes.

      They designed the fraud instruments to be used in the fraud process. The same banksters who gave the FIRE industry the credit default swap, no control food stamp revenues throughout the country, manipulated the LIBOR rates to enhance the profitability of those municipal swap deals at the state and local levels, structured finance loans and proprietary trading, and pumping up the NYSE and NASDAQ.

      Be advised, never make excuses for your masters, for your slave holders.

      Their chief instruments of fraud and deception:

      (1) Unlimited number of investors per hedge fund
      (2) Unlimited number of commodity futures contracts
      (3) Unlimited number of credit default swaps (i.e., naked swaps)
      (4) DTCC’s Stock Borrow Program allowing for naked short selling
      (5) LIBOR (and probably EUROBOR, but haven’t researched that thoroughly yet) rates manipulation

      (And probably endless others we aren’t aware of.)

    2. YankeeFrank

      I believe the thing to do is sue for a declaratory judgment, whereby the bank would have to produce the mortgage and note and prove who owns the mortgage, or not. If not, there should be a process to nullify the mortgage outright. I’m no lawyer, but I spoke to a lawyer about this mess and this was her suggestion. I myself have hired an excellent litigator that has been handling these fraudulent foreclosures for 4 years now. He knows how to litigate them, and the banks are frightened of him.

      1. Sue Em

        I asked them to bring the original note but they simply won’t. The judge was understandably confused and will notify us of the judgement in writing. I hope the fact that the attorney lied about ownership (either the first or second hearing) gives me some “bonus points”. Thanks for the declatory judgement idea!

  10. Sharon

    LPS is the chair of the unsecured creditors in the Taylor Bean & Whitaker Bankruptcy and not a significant creditor. Neil Luria of Navigant Capital is the Plan Trustee and approved LPS. Most of the assets that are left are going to astronomical fees for Navigant and friends. Navigant is also the company doing the foreclosure reviews for Litton Loan Services and Goldman Sachs is trying to keep under the radar. They must not let the investors know that Litton provided them with their bets against trusts, the ones they encouraged their clients to invest in allegedly.

    Recently Navigant working on behalf of a few bank creditors in the TBW bankruptcy and their gang of lawyers filed for bankruptcy with the bankruptcy remote funding arm Ocala Funding, LLC. And the first order of business was to examine Freddie Mac and the FHFA. Now if the bankruptcy continues their astronomical fees will go on for the foreseeable future. The homeowners that were defrauded get nothing and are left in the TBW bankruptcy where claims are being paid at ~1%. The ~$87M in the TBW bankruptcy that was set aside for homeowners is nowhere to be found. These are incestuous times for sure.

    1. Wendy Alison Nora

      This also describes the judicial fraud enterprise known as the RESCAP (GMAC) bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-12020, Judge Martin Glenn presiding. Judge Glenn knows that the RESCAP debtors are claiming to own real estate confiscated with forged documents and that the bankruptcy is a title-laundering enterprise. He legislated the provisions to allow the RESCAP debtors continuation of fraudulent foreclosures based on forged documents in a single, final order. The order allows the RESCAP debtors to foreclose on homes but prevents the homeowners from pursuing counterclaims for damages outside of an adversary proceeding which must be filed in Manhattan. He has bifurcated foreclosure proceedings to the complete advantage of the corporate criminal cartel under color of law–his own, singular order approving unprecedented destruction of the due process rights of homeowners throughout the nation. RESCAP argues that it is entitled to unprecedented treatment because its fraudclosure racket is necessary to the recovery of the US housing market. The support for that false statement is a single affidavit of an officer of RESCAP. The stolen assets are being liquidated to pay the fees of every parasitic enterprise (creditors, their business consultants, accounting firms and law firme) involved in the case. It is being operated in such a way as to deplete the estate before there can be any recovery for the homeowners who might “win” a claim against the RESCAP criminal enterprise. Fortunately, the real parties in interest: Ally Financial, CERBERUS Capital Management and the US Treasury are not under the protection of the bankruptcy court, but look for the RESCAP bankruptcy to be the model for Bank of America’s future attempt to discharge the Countrywide fraudclosure liabilities in bankruptcy. This is the greatest misuse of the bankruptcy law ever devised. It must be stopped.

      1. Sharon

        Thank you for this information. I’m in the TBW bankruptcy as a creditor so the information is valuable to me.

  11. Nate Hammertown

    Yves, I love you, but I think you are reading too much into the user of the word notarization. As used here, it just means that a notary witnessed the signing of the document and can affirm that the person who signed is the person whose name appears in the signature block.

    I think what the term you are looking for is “affidavit” or “declaration,” which must be made on personal knowledge.

    1. YankeeFrank

      I don’t think so. She is not referring to the fact that the notary must have personal knowledge, but that a person having a document notarized, Ms. Brown in this case, must be able to attest to the notary that she has personal knowledge of the document in order to sign it and have it notarized.

    2. Sharon

      Nate I agree with you on the notary signature. I believe that they are only signing and attesting that you signed the document in their presence. In this state it is required that you sign their book and that you state the reason for the notary though so the notary has a record of their signature and the reason for a notary’s signature.

      I recommend anyone that has questions about the notary to send away for a certified copy of the notary’s commission application. I did and what it revealed was the applicant was an Ocwen employee. He also sold pre-foreclosure and foreclosure properties. And the two signatories on the application for the same person were different. Ocwen has a special place because they whitewash for the GSE’s Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie. So two of my documents had this notary’s signature and those two signatures were not the same. In all four signatures of the same notary and none of them matched.

    3. Yves Smith Post author

      Agreed, I was NOT clear. The majority of the notarized documents were affidavits. The signing of the affidavits was what was transferred to DocX, along with the related notarization. That’s what makes this so bogus. Will amend the post.

  12. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny

    “It’s also hard to buy LPS’s claims that it was shocked that Brown was up to no good.”

    It isn’t hard to buy those claims. They are completely false, and thus cannot be purchased at any price.

    Folks in the trenches are well aware of, and have mountains of evidence that demonstrates, Fidelity and LPS having been the progenitors of this behavior in the mortgage industry.

  13. Alice

    I find it simply amazing that LPS didn’t have a clue and then further, had the audicity to fire her after she did all those Assignments and Satisfactions for them. What were they thinking. Her work must have been getting too much attention methinks. Oh Fidelity, would you like to see my Satisfaction. My attorney general has and so many numerous public agencies as well. Due to this finding I consider them null and void. Our politicians might not agree but that is their problem.

  14. Tom Stone

    I am a Realtor and won’t put a client into an REO. I looked at one today on the MLS that is held by an HSBC trust. 3 lenders of record, none HSBC. If you bought an REO, file a quiet title action. And if it’s a flipped REO be real careful about the insppections, not all flippers do a good job of repairs.

  15. OMF

    I think America has by now internalised this type of blatant legal impunity. Personally I think the seeds were sown with the “extraordinary rendition” farce. No matter. Your country is turning into Russia and the rest of us aren’t too far behind.

  16. Title company

    I read your post, I like it very much. It is very useful post. The most likable thing in the post is the way of the explanation , Thanks for giving me this information. Keep posting.

  17. Wendy Alison Nora

    LPS is trying to limit its liability by throwing Ms. Brown out as a human sacrifice. The DOJ is claiming that Ms. Brown is personally liable for restitution on about a million separate damage claims. Assuming each home was worth $100,000.00, that would be $100,000,000,000.00 (One Hundred Billion Dollars) to homeowners and an equivalent amount to the investors. This is am attempt at an enormous coverup. Ms. Brown did not gain One Hundred Billion Dollars from the operation of this fraud enterprise. The servicers did. And they are the ones who are pretending to have been harmed by the operation. The servicers use the exact same business model as DOCX and are continuing to forge and rely on forged documents today.
    The benefit of the conviction of Ms. Brown will be when the correct words are used: forgery. Here is a partial definition of forgery from the Wisconsin Statutes:
    943.38 Forgery.
    (1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony:
    (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of debt or property rights; or
    (b) A public record or a certified or authenticated copy thereof; . . .
    Let us not accept servicer claims that they can authorize persons to sign documents in corporate capacities which they do not have. The servicers are guilty of instructing the forged and perjured documents to be created. The law firms are guilty of uttering the forgeries and suborning the perjuries, when they are informed that the documents are forged and perjured and they then continue to rely on the forged documents to confiscate homes, assuming that the law firms did not create false documents themselves, which some have done and continue to do. And judges are complicit in the crimes if they allow homes to continue to be taken on forged and perjured documents and false allegations of standing to foreclose.

  18. Susan the other

    Well Obama can’t have it both ways. If land title issues belong in state courts, then the 24Bn “settlement” is nowhere. It is a giant taxpayer ripoff. As usual. It is a blatant giveaway to the banks. And as far as proving intent to defraud, blatant fraud is clearly intentional fraud. Let’s all sit down and define “intentional.”

  19. Tim

    To add some perspective, rather than blind emotion here. I agree with you that more stringent notary processes should have been followed but despite the negative indignation, it wasn’t the fact that a third party was rubber stamping (robo-signing) as a formal end process. That fact in NO way had any material affect in the final outcome/dispensation of these loans. Once the issue/practice was found out, LPS spent the money to review ALL these loans and I believe only found three that were questionable. I admit there was definetly some fraud and abuses but it does not change the basic issues anf facts that in the vast majority of cases, it was simply that far too many people bought homes they couldn’t afford and others lost their jobs to continue to pay. The banks needed to do a better job at making exceptions to keep these people in their homes but the fact that some no-name signed the final documents to execute a foreclosure literally had nothing to do with it!

  20. web ressource

    We’re a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with useful information to work on. You’ve done a formidable task and our whole neighborhood will be grateful to you.

Comments are closed.