The US Attorney in the Middle District of Florida, Robert O’Neill, has submitted an information, basically a criminal charge without the use of a grand jury for the indictment, of Lorraine Brown, the founder of DocX, for the fraudulent production of mortgage assignments, notarizations, and other documents used to foreclose on borrowers (h/t 4closure fraud).
Previously, Brown had been indicted by the state of Missouri for the same practices. However, in a settlement, Missouri sought to settle with the parent company of DocX, Lender Processing Services (LPS), in exchange for their assistance in the Brown investigation (LPS also settled with Colorado recently). This led to the odd circumstance of Missouri alleging criminal conspiracy charges against a single individual, a logical impossibility. You have to conspire with someone to have a conspiracy, after all. Somebody had to buy the documents from DocX. And the idea that Brown came up with the notion of getting her employees to sign false mortgage documents, falsify notarizations and forge signatures entirely on her own is pretty dubious. Much like the UBS rogue trader convictions, stringing up Brown for being a “rogue document processor” divorced from the parent company makes no sense.
Similarly, the short criminal charge against Brown in Florida alleges this conspiracy of one. Brown ran DocX operations, eventually under the title of President and Senior Managing Director of “LPS Document Solutions, a Division of LPS.” In this capacity, DocX created and executed mortgage-related documents for a variety of servicers. And during this time, DocX falsified mortgage assignments, lost note affidavits and just about every other kind of mortgage document out there, documents that eventually got used as evidence for foreclosure in state courts, with title insurers and with local recording clerks. DocX also used unauthorized “surrogate signers” to notarize and testify to the veracity of documents, forging the signatures of the authorized officer. The surrogate signers, usually temp workers, executed thousands of documents a day, without underlying knowledge of the information contained therein.
The information hints at the idea that Brown and DocX made representations to its clients, the mortgage servicers, that DocX “had robust quality control procedures in place to ensure a thorough and proper signing, notarization and recordation process.” But we know that DocX advertised a prescribed menu of $100 for a mortgage assignment, or $150 for a full loan file, and often processed documents that listed “Bogus Assignee” as the owner of the loan. It’s impossible to believe that servicers unknowingly entered into this arrangement with DocX without knowing they falsified loans, certainly after they got the first batch of bad documentation.
Lorraine Brown is accused of a conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, by falsifying signatures on the mortgage-related documents. But the information refers only to “co-conspirators, and others” without naming them in the suit. Who are they? It’s clear Brown didn’t act alone, yet years after the fact she stands accused as the only conspirator in a massive crime affecting the ownership documents on millions of properties.
It appears that Brown will cop a plea in this case, but I don’t quite have that information yet. More on this to come.
…as Fractal correctly puts it in the comments, it’s entirely possible that, as a condition of the plea agreement, Brown has agreed to talk about other co-conspirators as part of a wider-ranging investigation in the case. I would hope so.
UPDATE: OK, here’s the plea agreement. Brown pled guilty to mail and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. So Lorraine Brown will go to jail.
As part of the agreement, “Defendant agrees to cooperate fully with the United States in the investigation and prosecution of other persons or entities, and to testify, subject to a prosecution for perjury or making a false statement, fully and truthfully before any federal court proceeding or federal grand jury in connection with the charges in this case and other matters. Such cooperation includes a full and complete disclosure of all relevant information, including production of any and all books, papers, documents, and other objects in defendant’s possession or control, and to be reasonably available for interviews which the United States may require.”
So that’s pretty promising. Hallelujah!




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
If the court filing is in fact labeled an “information,” it means the defendant waived her right to have federal criminal charges brought by indictment. Defendants usually waive indictment when they intend to plead guilty. It is entirely possible that she signed a plea agreement weeks or months ago, and that prosecutors delayed the filing of the information to avoid disrupting an election (as required by DOJ’s US Attorneys Manual).
If an information has been filed, the court will set a data for a hearing at which the defendant will probably enter a guilty plea. Additional documents will be filed by prosecutors and defense counsel shortly before or on the date of that hearing.
Her plea agreement (which has already been signed, either today or weeks ago, see mine @1) requires her to cooperate in order to earn reduction of her sentence. Part of her cooperation will be naming co-conspirators, who may in fact already be indicted in sealed indictments that will be unsealed only after the co-conspirator(s) are arrested.
The PDF given to you is a criminal information charging Brown with a single count each of mail fraud and wire fraud. It is noteworthy that it is undated and shows no evidence of having been filed, nor is a specific criminal case number assigned. You may have received a leak of prosecution material that the court is not even aware of yet. But the defendant knows about it, her lawyer and she both signed a negotiated plea agreement already and they negotiated the language in another prosecution document that will be filed shortly before or on the date of the first hearing, called the “statement of offense.” Often, that additional filing will contain significant new disclosures about the role of others in the criminal conspiracy.
Later, after the defendant enters her guilty plea and is processed, a sentencing hearing will be scheduled. Prior to the date of the sentencing, both sides will file sentencing memoranda. The defendant may file piles of written character references (testimonials) with the defense’s memo on the proposed sentence.
This is an early document, but there’s a hearing taking place in Florida right now. This is a negotiated plea deal, we don’t have all the contours of it yet.
About time! Thanks for the info.
I hope your source can double-check whether the “Factual Basis” filing had more than seven pages. It appears to end in mid-stream (pp. 22-28 of 28 pp. PDF) and lacks a signature page, which is essential to make it binding on defendant (with or without her initials).
I would agree with you that this prosecution would be promising, except for the obvious effort to give the banks and servicers the excuse that “we didn’t know.” Section 8b of the Information (PDF p. 5 of 28) states as follows (italics added):
Similarly, the “Factual Basis” filing defines Brown’s “clients” as the mortgage servicers (PDF p. 23 of 28), then states the following (PDF p. 25 of 28) (italics added):
I think that’s bullshit. The servicers certainly knew and intended that the defective assignments, lost note affidavits and lost assignment affidavits would be repaired by forged instruments. If DOJ was planning to prosecute a single bank or servicer for aiding & abetting and profiting from this gigantic robo-signing factory, DOJ would never have given the banks and servicers such a blatantly false excuse.
comments relate to the pages in the second court filing provided in Dday’s update. That second filing is actually at least three documents combined into one: the Information, the Plea Agreement, and the Factual Basis, which is known as the “Statement of Offense” in the practice of the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in DC and the DOJ Public Integrity Section.
Yes, there’s absolutely a straining in this filing to see to it that nobody presumes that the servicers actively sought DocX for document fabrication, that Lorraine Brown just came up with this huge scam on her own.
Brown committed her own crimes, and it’s promising that someone has been charged for this. But the idea that servicers were a bunch of dupes taken in by that devious Lorraine Brown is complete nonsense.
I think they delayed to avoid a panic sell off of bank stock
Read the agreemen. 3 years of supervised release under the Fla plea.
HOWEVER, the Missouri state AG also took a criminal plea from her that involves 3 years in prison
I don’t believe the “unbeknownst” part either, but it’s mostly moot in light of the 50 state settlment which essentially laundered the banks collusion in this.
I forget where I have the link, but DocX/LPS actually had a “menue” of services with prces for creating each document., They included one for “file re-creation”
The models for forgery, fabrication and perjury as relates to mortgages and foreclosure was NOT developed by Brown, or Docx.
To verify the above one need only look at public records. Affidavits submitted in an untold number of cases are one source of verification. Assignments in land records are another. An untold number of these false affidavits, and forged and fabricated assignments, were prepared and executed by parties OTHER THAN Brown, DocX, or LPS Document Solutions.
A read of the April 7, 2011, Memorandum and Opinion from the In re Wilson case (Eastern District LA, Case 07-11862) shows clearly that Fidelity National Information Services was involved a number of years ago. A read of the Fidelity internal news letter of Sept. 2006 shows clearly that the Fidelity Document Execution Team was pumping out 1000 documents daily.
Cynthia, here is a link to the menu and price list I believe you referred to – http://www.scribd.com/doc/38591053/Lender-Processing-Services-DOCX-Document-Fabrication-Price-Sheet
After reading the various documents associated with the Brown plea, and commentary here and other places, it looks to me as if this is an attempt to shut the door on robo-signing generally, and to further preclude victims of the criminal acts from seeking redress, finding relief, or ever being made whole.
I agree. This is another in a long series of cover ups.
No, the National Mortgage Settlement did not grant any immunity for crimes.
While I agree that is the intent of this silly plea agreement which suggests that the source of all fraud is Lorraine Brown (to try to close the door on the crimes) let us keep exposing the truth. Please do not be demoralized. The proffered finding of fact are simply not believable. The whole notion of authorizing document mills to create legal documents is legally unsupportable. It shows that those in charge of the fraudclosure scheme were trying to distance themselves from accountability. They do the same thing with their in-house forgery operations: hire low level employees without a clue as to what the law is, train them to follow illegal procedures and give them official titles such as vice president of documentation.