FALSE DOCUMENTS, FALSE IDENTITIES

I have been receiving a great deal of confidential information from sources that appear to be reliable. These people wish to maintain their privacy and have offered their information on condition of anonymity. This is a report concerning some of that information.

We have received information from several homeowners that when they went to the recording office and obtained copies of the documents on their loan closing they discovered that the note and mortgage (deed of trust) were dated before the loan closing. In some cases people are alleging an actual forgery and assert that they have handwriting experts to back them up. This alone is interesting. They don’t dispute the loan closing and they don’t dispute that they signed a note and mortgage. What they dispute is that the documents recorded are not the documents they signed.

A little more disturbing is the fact that several homeowners with specific knowledge are reporting forged and fabricated documents wherein the signature is actually computer-generated. Unlike previous reports on this blog which relate to the signatures of the various people supposedly representing the pretender lenders, these reports relate to the signatures of the homeowner.

Apparently there is technology that produces a false “true and correct copy” of any signature. According to the reports I am receiving, this technology is currently in widespread use by pretender lenders. The reasons for the use of forged signatures through computers may relate back to the original studies from three years ago where it was found that at least 40% of the notes were destroyed or lost. Somehow that issue has diminished over the last three years, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still true. (Another reason to follow our rule here “assume nothing, question everything.”)

There is a growing body of evidence that the pretender lenders and their attorneys are involved in a common practice of creating documents and forging the signatures. The witnesses produced afterwards are carefully coached on what to say. One specific case was pointed out by a reader in which the “witness” testified that they “would sign” and not that they “did sign.”

Additionally, I have a report that alleges that virtually all the names on foreclosure documents are false identities. In fact, this source alleges that several names in the mortgage electronic registration system are people who do not exist. The source was referring to the top management. I would also wonder whether the people who signed on behalf of MERS were false identities––in other words people who did not exist.

I have often said on these pages that MERS does not touch any of the documents or the money. I would maintain that that continues to be true, but there is an allegation from someone who has access to detailed information regarding the technology platforms in use that the actual fabrication of documents is managed by a common entity and electronically created off of a common technology platform. This has minimized but not eliminated cases in which the same homeowner and the same property is subject to multiple foreclosures from multiple sources.

The forgery of signatures through electronic devices is only a temporary stopgap until ERDS comes into widespread use, at which time a “digital signature,” will be all that is required. The problem here is that lawmakers have no idea what is involved in digital signatures and the many opportunities for moral hazard. Or, the other possibility is that they don’t care.

In any event it is worth repeating that the MERS technology platform is only a technology platform and does not involve people interacting with people. It involves people all over the country logging on to the MERS system and interacting with a computer. This interaction consists of both (A.) changing data at will and (B.) producing self-serving documents which purport to give any person designated in the computer session the right to sign on behalf of MERS or even other entities.