Remember the Scott Anderson whom NY Judge Shack said seemed to have questionable allegiances to multiple employers? Remember how questions arose about whether Scott Anderson actually signed those thousands of documents? Remember the arrogant responses from Ocwen and others about how borrowers were just trying to get a free house? Fraud on the Court seemed like an out-of-the-box theory designed to delay the inevitable. Maybe not.
Here we are coming into the final lap of 2010 and Ocwen employees and officers and lawyers and others are realizing that they don’t like the prospect of going to jail for perjury so they are telling the truth, in a self-serving way, to be sure, but the truth is they lied and they admit it now. So OK, they admit that Anderson really didn’t sign those documents. We still don’t know if Anderson actually exists, by the way. But they NOW assert that Anderson gave his permission to other people to sign HIS NAME. So it wasn’t his signature — big deal. So it was notarized and witnessed as though he HAD signed it. Isn’t there a law against that?
I know people think I’ve been out on a limb here for all these years — but this dog isn’t even in the hunt. If the person who signed it had the authority to sign it why did they need to sign Anderson’s name, except to conceal who was really signing it? And why would anyone need to be signing any document at all if the original documentation was right to begin with? (oops) And if the original documentation wasn’t right, why didn’t they simply go to the homeowner and say we made a mistake and we want you to approve this document? And if it wasn’t a mistake then but it is a mistake now, whose fault is that? The attempt at rewriting history so they can keep the purse they snatched is unraveling. Now they are scrambling for cover. Soon the ankle-biters will be pointing the fingers at each other. And THAT is the rest of the story as Paul Harvey liked to say.
Filed under: foreclosure |