EDITOR’S NOTE: We have received reports of using radioactive carbon-dating and microscopy proving the age the paper and the age of the signature differ by a matter of years. Dating the other writing on the paper further corroborates the allegation of forgery. Sources have reported that in Atlanta, the procedure has been used on the “original” note produced in court by the pretender lender, proving the document was a forgery even though the borrower conceded the signature was authentic.

There are several ways to reproduce an authentic signature on a new document making it appear to be an original document. And there are several conclusions, each leading to proof of forgery:

  1. If the document is dated 5 years ago, and the signature, indorsement or assignment execution is dated on paper that is more recent, or the actual signature is more recent than the rest of the document (the paper, the other writing etc.) then the signature was not on the document at or near the time of the document’s creation.
  2. If it is the borrower’s signature that has been technologically reproduced and introduced as an original it means that the the actual original note is somewhere else. It also raises the possibility that more “originals” are circulating in those fictitious “Trusts” or “pools” purporting to claim the obligation, note or mortgage.
  3. If it is the signature or paper that is presented as an assignment dated at or near the time of closing with the borrower but either the paper, the signature, the witness signature or the notary signature or stamp does not coincide with the date of the purported document, the same analysis holds: it is a forgery. This also raises the possibility that the “original” note or mortgage has been reproduced more than once and has been sold more than once to more than one “Trust” or “Pool.” This will frequently occur where the originator of the loan misrepresenting itself as a lender is said to have executed an indorsement, delivery and assignment of the note and mortgage at the time of the loan transaction as required by the REMIC statute and the Pooling and Services Agreement.
  4. If the originator is out of business or bankrupt and the person signing, executed the instrument a few days before an evidentiary hearing they must prove their authority to execute the instrument on behalf of what is now a defunct company. The document that is produced to enable the “Limited Signing Officer” to execute will also show that it was recently produced, contrary to the requirements of the REMIC statute and the requirements of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. This raises the additional possibilities mentioned above, but more importantly the probability that the transfer instrument is void.
  5. Even if the originator of the “loan” transaction is still in business and even if the signor was authorized to sign on behalf of the originator (doubtful in most cases) if the alleged transfer documents took place outside of the 90 day window provided by the REMIC statute and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the transfer is void without an additional document showing acceptance by the transferee “trust” or “pool” and waiving the requirements of statute and the PSA. [In order to prove this you might need discovery or testimony from the alleged “trustee” that he would accept a non-performing loan or this loan without consent of the investors or that he had consent of the investors in which case he would need to identify the investors, each of whom would be required to authenticate a document that does not exist].
  6. In order to execute such a waiver, the signature of the investors would be required. Since these events inevitably occur long after the loan is declared in”default” (even if the investor continued to receive payments) it is highly unlikely that an investor would agree to accept a non-performing loan or even a loan which on which payments are being made by a third party but where the borrower  has ceased making payments.
  7. In all such events the original note described a transaction that did not occur and the obligation (that arose when the money was received by borrower or paid to a third party on behalf of the borrower) is not documented. Hence the mortgage, unless it identifies the correct parties and the correct obligation, secures an invalid note. This the obligation is not secured and the note which purports to be secured is evidence of a transaction that never occurred.  Thus the mortgage that is incident to the note described in the mortgage is void, in effect a “wild deed.”
  8. The result is that the obligation still exists, although undocumented and unsecured, owed to an unidentified third party who actually funded the loan. In most cases this is the investor who purchased bogus mortgage backed securities or synthetic derivatives based upon MBS.
  9. The investor probably has a right to sue the homeowner claiming unjust enrichment and perhaps an equitable lien in favor of the investor. The risk to the investor is choosing that remedy is that they would be opening the door to defenses and counterclaims for fraudulent acts and violations of statutes committed by their agents at the closing. Thus instead of pursuing an unsecured undocumented obligation from a homeowner whose wealth is tied up in a largely depreciated home, the investors have elected to sue the investment banking houses for selling bogus bonds.


Document Forgery

Information can serve as evidence in a forensic investigation. Paperwork, computer files, notes, and more can help piece together the incident under study. However, it is not always guaranteed that the information is genuine. Identifying a deliberately altered document or identifying the manufacture of a fictitious, but convincingly real, document or file is a challenge for the forensic investigator.

Forensic scientists examine paper manufacturers’ marks and, if necessary, use radiocarbon dating techniques to verify the age of a document. Handwriting and linguistic style analysis can help determine the document’s author. Forgery specialists also make use of ultraviolet lighting and spectography equipment to determine whether a document contains evidence of tampering through erasure or added characters. Inks and dyes are examined through chemistry, and paper fibers are examined microscopically in order to validate or determine their source. When criminals create elaborate forgeries, such as counterfeit currency, sophisticated computerized printers are often used, and examining their encrypted computer files and printer cartridges can help determine the source of the forgery. Evidence from criminal cases of suspected forgery are probed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Unit; the United States Secret Service investigates counterfeit currency.

On September 8, 2004, CBS News anchor Dan Rather aired a news report questioning the service record of President George Bush in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Several weeks later, when the authenticity of one of the key documents used by CBS News was called into question, Rather publicly apologized. CBS News has since been criticized for failing to follow basic journalistic principles; in essence by failing to properly conduct a forensic investigation.

The CBS debacle is one of literally hundreds of examples of forged documents passing scrutiny as the authentic item. On September 17, 1980, White House press spokesman Jody Powell announced that an unidentified group had sought to sow racial discord by circulating a forged Presidential Review Memorandum on Africa that suggested a racist policy on the part of the United States. The first surfacing of the forgery appears to have been in the San Francisco newspaper, Sun Reporter (September 18, 1980). The Sun Reporter’s political editor, Edith Austin, claims in that issue of the paper to have received the document from an “African official on her recent visit on the continent.” The forgery was replayed by the Soviet news agency TASS on September 18, 1980, and distributed worldwide.

Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the target of more than one Soviet forgery. On February 6, 1983, the pro-Soviet Indian weekly, Link published the text of a supposed speech by U.N. Ambassador Kirkpatrick outlining a plan for the Balkanization of India. The speech was never given, but this forgery was replayed many times by Soviet-controlled propaganda outlets. Its most recent appearance was in the book, Devil and His Dart, published in 1986. The author, Kunhanandan Nair, was the European correspondent of Blitz, another pro-Soviet publication.

On November 5, 1982, the British magazine, New Statesman published a photostat of a letter supposedly from a South African official to Kirkpatrick. He was allegedly sending her a birthday gift. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. wrote the magazine on November 19, branding the letter a forgery. The New Statesman countered this by printing another photostat of the forgery with entirely different spacing between the lines. The magazine claimed that the letter was authentic and that they had received it from a source in the U.S. Department of State. A comparison of this forgery with a letter sent by the South African official to a number of U.S. journalists announcing his appointment as Information Counsellor at the embassy revealed that this letter was the exemplar. The real letter had been typed on a computer. The forgery based on it was typed on a typewriter and contained a number of misspellings.

In a particularly bizarre incident, two leaflets were mailed to African and Asian participants in the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics, which were boycotted by the Soviets. Signed by the Ku Klux Klan, they threatened the lives of the athletes. These leaflets later proved to be Soviet forgeries, written in poor English. When the U.S. government exposed them and pointed out that there is no organization in the United States called simply the Ku Klux Klan (the organizations bear individual names like White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan or Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan), TASS, the Soviet official news agency, responded on July 12, 1984, by claiming that the leaflets were signed “the Invisible Empire, The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.” TASS attempted unsuccessfully to correct the error on the leaflets made by the KGB. The forgeries were intended to preoccupy African-American and Asian-American athletes with intimidation, and negatively affect their performance.

In the 1980s, before the downfall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991, President Ronald Reagan’s signature appeared on a number of forgeries. The last to appear was in May 1987. It was a supposed memorandum to the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Director of the CIA. In this forgery, which bore the date March 10, 1983, the President was supposedly ordering the establishment of a U.S. military force called the “Permanent Peace Forces” to intervene in Latin America. This forgery received wide circulation in Latin America and was designed to inflame nationalist and anti-American feelings.

These and other examples serve to illustrate how effective a forgery can be. While a typical forensic investigation would likely not have such political ramifications, a forgery could undermine a legal case or lead the investigation in a wrong direction.

34 Responses

  1. Can we do this for Obama’s birth certificate and put that matter to rest – even?!?

  2. Louise (1/25/11 post), I have posted a signature of Robert Hardman on my website

    Hope it helps. If you have any, please return the favor.

    Steve Vondran, Esq.
    Arizona / California Foreclosure Defense Lawyer

  3. What if the age of witness and writing of the body of the document is recent (after the borrower’s death) than the borrower’s signature, which is 5 years past?

  4. Ian

    Find warehouse lenders — “syndicate of banks.” Corporations can remain as “active” in state registrations for 3 years after dissolution to conduct only wind down business — not operating business. Then question is – is WL Ross retaining the Sand Canyon name?? Deregulated — do not know.

  5. ANONYMOUS- I’m aware of Option One changing their name to Sand Canyon. Read somewhere that Sand Canyon, in court testimony, stated that they neither originate nor service mortgages. Their only purpose is to handle litigation regarding Option One. Also, H&R Block owned Option One, also H&R Block Mortgage. Almost brought them down, H&R Block has settled a number of other suits regarding “instant IRS refunds” and similar. Good co. to steer clear of. Who was/were Option One’s warehouse lenders? Any idea? Definitely a criminal organization.

  6. Ian,

    Now that is interesting. You know, H & R Block changed the name to Sand Canyon — as part of the agreement to sell Option One?? That is — they CHANGED the name during the sale of Option One to Wilbur Ross!!! It was part of the agreement!!!


    You have a difficult judge — have to figure out your path — either appeal — or file independent action for fraud in federal court – or fraud on the court. You are right — part of the problem is that many attorneys just do not fully realize what has been going on. Those that do — are overwhelmed.

    Which is why I keep saying — where is the DOJ?? where is the government?? Until they do — have to keep plugging along — know your avenue.

  7. Re: DeutscheBank under question in Bridgeport, Conn. bk hearing Option One/Sand Canyon and others,assign.of mortgage,no portion of allonge visible on photocopy of note previously introduced as proof of ownership,etc. Good short read. Sorry,I don’t know how to attach or link these items.

  8. Mr. Bryl:

    I am in Florida and do realize I am climbing an uphill battle and since made sure I had a court reporter with me at hearing(s).

    I was hoping the Judge does in fact realize since the hearing of what actually did and is taking place and aside from my right of leave to amend answers, maybe that is the way he knows I can get back to level playing field since my previous attorney did not take the proper route, why I don’t know, but in any event, I will continue to do what I can.

    Would like nothing more than to have representation, but the ones on the blog that are really standing up for people are so busy or they do not do my county. So I will continue on my own or hopefully find counsel at some point, that will work for me.

    Thanks for your response and of course if you know of an attorney, who I could speak with, please refer.

  9. Mary, I wonder what state you are in.
    As I recently blogged, you are facing an uphill battle even if you do everything right and even if you tie the judge’s hands with clear, black letter law (not possible in most cases). The only thing we can do in these cases is set up as clear and as clean record as possible for appeal, to make sure there is a glaring “reversible error.”

    There have been very few “clean and clear” cases for appeal because everybody is still learning this stuff, including attorneys. In time, there will be more and more cases where the judge’s hands are so tied by the law, that he cannot help but rule for you. And if he doesn’t, you’ll quickly reverse him on appeal. And if not, the Supremes will get involved, and as Ibanez shows, the judiciary still remains the last bastion of the rule of law, at least in some states.

  10. Anon:

    The depositor according to psa was goldman sachs and the only endorsement on the note or anywhere is The infamous Steve Nagy of New Century, whom originated this loan and was stamped signature and no proof of authority or power of attorney attached to the assignment, which so happened to be made by mers/litton loan, whom is owned by goldman sachs and avelo was the prior servicer, who did the modification.

    Mind you New Century entered into Bankruptcy on 4/2/07. Mod done in 6/08 and assignment recorded on 8/09.

    Lis pendens filed 5/09 and assignment signed on 6/09 with a retro date/effective date 2/09.

    But court denied my motion to dismiss for lack of standing and also lack of capacity because from the onset they did not include trust name and 1 1/2 years of failing to answer and produce even under motion to compel 12/09, judge denies me cause i didnt follow procedure, because the lawyer I had prior missed the boat and I pro se have been climbing uphill slowly. But court did grant leave to amend answers just recently and allowed them to insert trust name under scrivners error.

  11. mary

    Look at the Conveyance of Mortgage Loans — in PSA — the last one in chain to endorse should be the Depositor.

    Heard one attorney ask a witness — “Must the PSA be adhered to in order for valid conveyance?” Witness said yes — then attorney showed that docs submitted did not adhere to PSA — meaning not validly conveyed.

    If not validly conveyed — then no possession — and party before you has no standing in foreclosure.

  12. anon
    thanks for sticking it out, your input is a GREAT HELP!

  13. Anon:

    I don’t believe they can come back and say that since there is only one alleged endorsement on the alleged original note, Bankrupt entity, ****VP of records management without recourse.

    But still no way to correct what is done and submitted in the local court, for I have certified copies.

    I feel so much better hearing from you my train of thought and will feel more confident in the route I am going in.

    Thank you and Neil so much for all you do. We are eternally grateful for your help and guidance.

    Keep on posting

  14. Mary

    Servicer never divulges as to whether they are the current creditor to whom any payments will forwarded and not transferred to any other party, or whether servicer is acting on behalf of another party. If acting on behalf of another party — that party must sign the modification – servicer must disclose this.

    Yes, if loan was written off — any party (servicer/servicer acting on behalf of) who now holds collection rights – those rights are for an unsecured written-off debt. IRS will not let them collect twice. And, everything must be properly transferred. See Footnote 35 by TARP Oversight panel – below —

    “35 There are two documents that need to be transferred as part of the securitization process – a promissory note and the security instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust). The promissory note embodies the debt obligation, while the security instrument provides that if the debt is not repaid, the creditor may sell the designated collateral
    (the house). Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt. See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3.”

    In order for modification contract to be validly executed in the name of servicer — need proper transfer of note and mortgage to servicer. Not enough to just hold the note for someone else. This is a contract. Bankruptcy reform bill was voted down twice by Congress – why? afraid Americans would understand what was really going on. Better for them to con homeowners further by luring into false mod contract. .

    angry & NOT TAKING IT

    The servicer/debt collector (current creditor) do not care about who OWNED the written off debt — WE CARE — if they can get away with non-disclosure — they will — and deregulation says — they can. Debt buyers love to state the past creditor as the current creditor — but, legally, this is not the case — and it is fraud and in violation of federal law. Courts accept that past (possible) creditor is still current creditor because that is how attorneys present it– but , this is fraud and a big problem — and it is not being investigated as it should be.

    Consumer protection laws say no. Though not as strong as we would like — consumer protection laws do exist — have to use them to the fullest. Including any sale of loan to any party — as outlined by the TILA — (and FDCPA for that matter). Tired of looking at this whole mess from “investor” prospective — there are “security investors” and “distressed debt investors” — need to distinguish — and need to focus on consumer law and protection.

    Everyone has a right to know their current creditor. If that right is violated — so is federal law. If you do not know your current creditor — you will be affected for the rest of your life. Any modification you sign will be false. It is time to stop focusing on investors (who have been paid back – except they may not have earned the usury interest rate they thought they would) and start focusing on consumer fraud — and violation of our rights. Investors have gotten help — they were bailed out — WE NEED THE HELP NOW.

    It does not matter that security investors may have helped fund the banks — they were not then — and are not now — our creditor. What a bank does with receivables is their business — we have no contract with security investors — or servicers unless the servicer acquired legal title –and if so — say so — and say when and how (as required by law) — and for what price. And, say this before a modification is negotiated — it is ammunition. Any concealment is — simply fraud upon fraud.

  15. mary good point
    re actual fraud in the inducement,etc

  16. anon.
    hypothetical –
    if the sevicer/debt collector, acquires collection rights to a bk lender /broker’s-distressed debt[asset] – why would they care who owns the actual written down valueless debt?
    just buy the collection rights – collect the $$ and tie it up in the biz cycle as profit.
    no need to reveal the owner [as no one cares]

  17. My point really is how could a servicer do anything for an entity that is under bankruptcy proceeding?

    And if they had no servicing agreement in place, between them, then they cannot do that either.

    Last, if the purchaser of the loans xyz corp, got stuck with junk but no assignment of mortgage was done, prior to the attempted assignment in 2009, how can mod be in effect, since they did not have proper transfer, just junk notes. If that.

    And if that is what they did, fraudulently induced borrower into re-signing, to create a lien for an unsecured note they had, by way of omissions about the originator or any other omission about the transfer of the note, and their rights to security on the junk note they held, then I believe it is actual fraud in the inducement,etc.

    The mod should be null and void and the Note and Mortgage should be null and void.

  18. Anon:


    Signed by +++ /***mortgage/servicer

  19. Anon:

    Mod says:

    By and between , Borrower and ***hereinafter servicer.

    Whereby Servicer is the holder of a mortgage dated *** securing obligation evidenced by a promissory note in the amount***….

    Borrower and Note Holder desire to modify the terms of the said promissory note secured by the security instrument as set forth herein.

    Now therefore in consideration of the agreement set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid each party to the other …and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and with each of the parties hereto intending to be legally bound by the terms of this modification agreement the parties hereby agree as set forth.

    Borrower and servicer hereby agrees that all terms and conditions of said security instrument and prom note and other loan documents relative to said loan shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically modified herein.

    Buyer and servicer agree that this modification agreement does not constitute a waiver of the prom note , security or their terms and shall not adversely affect the validity or lien priority of the security instrument or any other mortgage instrument executed and delivered as security for the in debtness now evidenced by this modification agreement… which mortgage lien and security are hereby agreed to continue in full force and effect.

  20. Mary

    Not sure – what you are saying. But, it is not in the pool. Was there a modification, and if so, who did the modification??? Any omission of facts would affect contract validity — this is why I keep saying any modification in servicer’s name alone is invalid. Not sure I am reading your post right.

  21. Anon:
    Thank you for responding, but the concerns I have is this:

    1. If they were left with the purchasing bank and the purchasing bank knew of the predatory lending and specifics in say of my loan (bait & switch, fraud, etc) and services it and after one year of complaints falling on deaf ears modifies the rate terms (just one of the problems) and who knows ,
    that they the seller bank , in which they bought these loans from were predatory and its originator went bankrupt and then does not disclose that they are new owner of the loan which tricks homeowner into a waiver of rights against them (inside information and omission to borrower) thinking “It wasn’t the servicers fault” when in fact they themselves are creating an escape through omission of the facts in the modification, regarding this selling entity that went bankrupt and that they are in fact new owner by way of purchase and sale agreement and they had to keep this junk mortgage, truth , or that I had recourse and they should not have gotten involved and took the loss and waited to claim it against the seller entity in bankruptcy. No, the selfish bastards hid the true facts and through scheme and trickery, do it this way to keep collecting until they get a remedy, possibly falsely incurred.

    And how in 2009 can this Plaintiff state it was placed into a pool which cut off date has since past two years later.

    Ironically the servicer(s) and the puchasing entity are all in house. All connected.

  22. mary,

    Good question.. Many repurchases were not put back — as was quickly being discovered that they should. This is part of reason why subprime lenders shut down so quickly — they did not have the capital to meet the repurchase demands – and credit lines for funding new mortgages were shut down. So — what happens in BK to those “assets” that should have been repurchased by subprime originator. Did they remain with the purchasing bank (security underwriter’s parent corp) — or are they part of BK assets???

    Complicated —

  23. If Buyer entity had a purchase and sale agreement, with re-purchase demand if Seller had to re-state earnings. But buyer could not shove the toxic loans back to seller due to seller entering bankruptcy and then the sold loans, (paper) due to kick out as scratch and dent for dirt cheap, which is stating to be in a trust of securitized mortgages, which it never made it in by cut off date, would that be a form of fraud. And what if the assignment to that mortgage was now made by mers/servicer as nominee for bankrupt lender 2 years after cutoff date of the psa and there is no evidence of authorization from the bankruptcy court to do so for bankrupt entity.

    The kicker, what if servicer was advised that fraud, bait and switch , etc., took place at closing and did nothing but then offers a modification of terms through omissions of facts of lender and omission
    that is or has new owner of loan,, knowing there was fraud, etc., covering there a** cause they bought the loan for dirt and now two years later tries to foreclose and submits an assignment of mortgage from the bankrupt entity without authorization. Says it was sold and securitized place into trust ***** through this assignment in 7/09 with an effective date of 3/09 but not recorded until 8/09. mind you, the free writing prospectus loan schedule, shows six loans in this area and only two with this zip code and one only in the amount of the original supposed refinance amount, but all information on loan schedule appears all zeros telling me the loan was kicked out, couldn’t demand repurchase due to the bankruptcy of originator and probably sold to junk debt buyer for dirt, whom happens to be the servicer on the psa, but is now claiming it was in trust.

    So if this purchaser bought this debt knowingly through inside information and through scheme and trickery induces the home-owener into re-signing just to continue collecting and places them in a situation whereby they default, so they could come in and foreclose with false assignment to trust, would that be considered in your opinion to be fraud in the inducement?

    Comments would be appreciated







  25. It’s hard enough to get the plaintiff to compel production of copies, why are they going to just let you examine bearer paper, if it’s assigned in blank. I just don’t see how this going to happen. Sounds good, but don’t believe it’s possible.

  26. Does anybody out there have Robert Hardman on their assignment of mortgage or other robo-signed documents? I saw him on one lawsuit in NY before Judge Schack.






  28. Here’s one of neils why dint they have the bona fide documents because they can pick n choose which ones thru want to forge, alter fabricate and create. As fir the rest ” you can’t audit what you don’t have”
    however i refer to ibanez. Go see ucc and fixation.( allonges firmly affixed to the note to be pART OF the note no breaks no retroactive assignments it says so in black letter law so assignment in blank is not supported by law choose what judge Curley says look at It’s history ect

  29. Please sign me up to receive all articles/updates/blogs from the Living Lies website. Thank you.

  30. .
    Excellent! The major obstacle is how defendants, manipulated into near bankruptcy, can afford such forensic techniques? In a many cases an inexpensive first line forensic analysis can reveal forgery or a strong indication of forgery. (Florida)

  31. Great post–very informative. My Assignment was recorded SIX MONTHS after the Lis Pendens was filed against the property. A robo-signer signed it, it was witnessed by Jessica Harris in South Carolina where the property is located, notarized in Texas (notary fraud) and witnessed again in Texas by Jessica Harris. AHMSI went bankrupt in August 2007, and the Assignment is dated January of 2008.

  32. I keep hearing about these “forgeries” but I have never seen the name of an actual case in these allegations. What was the case in Atlanta? Who was the lender?

  33. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sean walker, Teri Sherwood. Teri Sherwood said: FORENSIC FILES: CARBON DATING THE PAPER AND THE SIGNATURE TO PROVE FORGERY: #Fraud #Foreclosure Defense […]

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: