7 ms·

Former paralegal charged with forging the signatures of NY state justices

78 points by mlissner 11y ago

mlissner 11y ago
Structured Settlements are the ridiculous deals whereby I buy money that's owed to you for pennies on the dollar. Say you reached a settlement that pays you $500/month for 30 years, that's $180k over 30 years. But if I offered you $20k, today, you might take it, if you had developmental problems.[1] Well, structured settlements need a judge's signature to go through, with the theory that the judge reviews the deal to make sure it's fair. Except this guy just went ahead and forged the signature. [1]: More on this here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-companies-make-millions-off-lead-poisoned-poor-blacks/2015/08/25/7460c1de-0d8c-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-compa...
- zerocrates 11y ago
  Technically the structured settlement is the original settlement, the $500/month. What this guy forged signatures on were transfer approvals. The charges against the paralegal are one thing, but probably more interesting is the fact that since none of these transfers had the judicial approval mandated by the law, none of them are actually valid. Not sure how easy it is to go back and undo or redo all those sales.
  - mlissner 11y ago
    Right, flipped that in my mind. Thanks.
- ojgeojgaew 11y ago
  A structured settlement is a settlement that pays in some fashion other than a single lump sum (commonly an annuity). Many people choose to turn these types of long-lasting cash flows into cash today. As is so often the case, some annuity purchasers pay inarguably fair prices, and others don't. Some engage in fair dealing and some don't. milliner's accusations are akin to a claim that Wells Fargo is a predatory lender because payday loan shops exist.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    sorry I didn't keep up entirely with this story, who is Milliner that you refer to in your last paragraph?
- hsod 11y ago
  "Developmental problems" is a funny way of describing people who understand the concept of present value.
  - douche 11y ago
    The linked article (which was on the front-page some time ago) was about scammers going after people who had structured settlements that they had won due to suffering brain-damage and developmental disabilities from lead-poisoning. So literally true...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Accepting $20,000 for a cash stream worth $180,000 doesn't indicate much understanding of present value.
    - viraptor 11y ago
      It may make perfect sense. For example, if you're unemployed and receiving 20k right now would give you a chance to move + finish a course + get stable employment. That may be a much better solution than getting regular small payments that only give you a bit of breathing space every month on top of your benefits. But that's only assuming you can invest the 20k in a reasonable way.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Even if it's totally worth it, surely you can get a better deal than effectively taking out a loan with a 100% interest rate, or whatever it works out to. Edit: 30%. Not quite 100%, but still really bad.
        viraptor 11y ago
        Can you get a 30% APR loan if you have no job or savings and credit rating close to 0? Payday loans are 300%-1000%. People would go for the 30% loan you mention instead if they could.
ploxiln 11y ago
Different state and so different courts / justices, but seems very relevant to the previously big story here about buying out structured settlements for lump sums: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10120489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10120489
wanderfowl 11y ago
It's still amusing to me that handwritten signatures, particularly in this day and age, are treated as secure or even meaningful for these kinds of purposes. Certainly they're useful symbols, but in the era of photoshop and copiers, a signed document without notarization isn't any more secure or meaningful as proof of anything than an unsigned one.
- rayiner 11y ago
  They're not treated as secure. They're mostly a symbolic gesture that indicates the final version of a document and provides a concrete act that can be the basis for a lawsuit or prosecution in the event false representations are made about a document.
  - colordrops 11y ago
    But that's the point. How can a signature indicate the final version of a doc and provide basis for a lawsuit if the signature can't be verified as legitimate?
    - SEMW 11y ago
      It isn't providing the evidential basis, it's providing the legal basis. Ie the signature isn't used to authenticate in a public-key cryptography kind of way, it's being used as a legal trigger: 'if you write a name here that isn't yours, you are committing a criminal offence'. (How that offence is proved is a separate issue). Hence electronic signatures can be as simple as typing your name into a text box (or even just a checkbox). The (dubious) uniqueness of a handwritten signature is nonessential.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      In most every case, circumstantial evidence and witnesses can establish if the party that purportedly signed a document did in fact do so. The CEO of a company can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." So why do we bother to sign documents? Most of all, its a symbolic gesture intended to signal (to the parties and witnesses) the attachment of legal rights and obligations. It avoids disputes such as "yeah, he presented me with that document, but it was a proposal and I never agreed to it."
mikeryan 11y ago
I get what was done, but what was the upside for the Paralegal? Was he getting kickbacks or something?
the_hangman 11y ago
While this indictment makes it clear what he is charged with, it doesn't seem to imply any sort of motive. Any ideas? Another article on the subject[1] gives me the impression that the goal may have been simply to speed the process up but I'm not experienced in anything related to this.. [1]: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374928.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374...
- duskwuff 11y ago
  Possibly to get settlements "approved" which would otherwise have been rejected, or which they didn't want to bring to a judge's attention for whatever reason?
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Makes sense, but why? Was someone paying him a share? Was someone telling him he had to do it to keep his job? Most people won't forge something unless there's something in it for them.
    - imauld 11y ago
      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Wouldn't shock me at all if he just didn't feel like going to get them signed.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Kickbacks.
rconti 11y ago
Are daytime TV ads really that cheap, or are there so many people with structured settlements out there (from what?) that buying them is a profitable business to be in? On the other hand, if you're buying for pennies on the dollar and only need a tiny staff...
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  With interest rates at zero, any stream of income is going to be attacked ferociously.
Someone1234 11y ago
Signatures aren't secure, but that misses the point. In this instance the signatures are used as evidence that those transfers were sent, reviewed, and approved by a judge. Had it been done a verifiable document trail would exist. In this instance when it was discovered the signatures were faked (or cloned), they could go look at the document trail and it was quickly discovered that none existed. People will likely suggest other alternatives to signatures, like a unique serial number, but ultimately if people aren't verifying the document trail in the signature case, they won't verify it with a unique ID case, or most other clever means you can come up with (e.g. QR code, some kind of complex crypo method, etc). If it is a document that allows faxing and photocopying, and nobody is taking the time to verify the authenticity of it, there are no more secure systems you can create. Things like holograms, specialist paper inlays, seals, etc can easily be faked during fax/copy. Signatures are about as good/bad as anything else. The legal system is built on trust, verify, and punish.
numbsafari 11y ago
[1] The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. All factual recitations are derived from documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court. The headline of this should really read "Paralegal charged with forging signatures of 76 justices to reach structured settlements". Even the linked document itself makes this distinction and carries the above footnote.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  In the US, the public always presumes guilt until proven innocent. Then we still have our doubts.
  - numbsafari 11y ago
    In the US ... you mean everywhere. It's not like vigilantism and rushing to judgement is somehow a uniquely US trait.
    - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
      I don't live anywhere else, so I can't really speak to that.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
I feel sorry for the senior partners in this law firm. The poor hard working lawyers were callously duped by this master criminal and paralegal, they took his word that those dubious sales had been approved and never even checked his paperwork. And now look, he has skipped town, they are bischmirced in name, cannot hold their heads up at next weeks charity tennis match. It's awful.
veryluckyxyz 11y ago
Title is incorrect. In its current form, the title gives the impression that paralegal forged Judges' signatures to reach structured settlements. However, the paralegal forged judges' signature to help clients of his law firm acquire (the documents also uses the word "transfer") structured settlements awarded to individuals, presumably for a one-time payment.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

78 points by mlissner 11y ago

Structured Settlements are the ridiculous deals whereby I buy money that's owed to you for pennies on the dollar. Say you reached a settlement that pays you $500/month for 30 years, that's $180k over 30 years. But if I offered you $20k, today, you might take it, if you had developmental problems.[1] Well, structured settlements need a judge's signature to go through, with the theory that the judge reviews the deal to make sure it's fair. Except this guy just went ahead and forged the signature. [1]: More on this here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-companies-make-millions-off-lead-poisoned-poor-blacks/2015/08/25/7460c1de-0d8c-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-compa...

zerocrates 11y ago
Technically the structured settlement is the original settlement, the $500/month. What this guy forged signatures on were transfer approvals. The charges against the paralegal are one thing, but probably more interesting is the fact that since none of these transfers had the judicial approval mandated by the law, none of them are actually valid. Not sure how easy it is to go back and undo or redo all those sales.
- mlissner 11y ago
  Right, flipped that in my mind. Thanks.
ojgeojgaew 11y ago
A structured settlement is a settlement that pays in some fashion other than a single lump sum (commonly an annuity). Many people choose to turn these types of long-lasting cash flows into cash today. As is so often the case, some annuity purchasers pay inarguably fair prices, and others don't. Some engage in fair dealing and some don't. milliner's accusations are akin to a claim that Wells Fargo is a predatory lender because payday loan shops exist.
- logicallee 11y ago
  sorry I didn't keep up entirely with this story, who is Milliner that you refer to in your last paragraph?
hsod 11y ago
"Developmental problems" is a funny way of describing people who understand the concept of present value.
- douche 11y ago
  The linked article (which was on the front-page some time ago) was about scammers going after people who had structured settlements that they had won due to suffering brain-damage and developmental disabilities from lead-poisoning. So literally true...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Accepting $20,000 for a cash stream worth $180,000 doesn't indicate much understanding of present value.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    It may make perfect sense. For example, if you're unemployed and receiving 20k right now would give you a chance to move + finish a course + get stable employment. That may be a much better solution than getting regular small payments that only give you a bit of breathing space every month on top of your benefits. But that's only assuming you can invest the 20k in a reasonable way.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Even if it's totally worth it, surely you can get a better deal than effectively taking out a loan with a 100% interest rate, or whatever it works out to. Edit: 30%. Not quite 100%, but still really bad.
      - viraptor 11y ago
        Can you get a 30% APR loan if you have no job or savings and credit rating close to 0? Payday loans are 300%-1000%. People would go for the 30% loan you mention instead if they could.

ploxiln 11y ago

Different state and so different courts / justices, but seems very relevant to the previously big story here about buying out structured settlements for lump sums: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10120489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10120489

wanderfowl 11y ago

It's still amusing to me that handwritten signatures, particularly in this day and age, are treated as secure or even meaningful for these kinds of purposes. Certainly they're useful symbols, but in the era of photoshop and copiers, a signed document without notarization isn't any more secure or meaningful as proof of anything than an unsigned one.

rayiner 11y ago
They're not treated as secure. They're mostly a symbolic gesture that indicates the final version of a document and provides a concrete act that can be the basis for a lawsuit or prosecution in the event false representations are made about a document.
- colordrops 11y ago
  But that's the point. How can a signature indicate the final version of a doc and provide basis for a lawsuit if the signature can't be verified as legitimate?
  - SEMW 11y ago
    It isn't providing the evidential basis, it's providing the legal basis. Ie the signature isn't used to authenticate in a public-key cryptography kind of way, it's being used as a legal trigger: 'if you write a name here that isn't yours, you are committing a criminal offence'. (How that offence is proved is a separate issue). Hence electronic signatures can be as simple as typing your name into a text box (or even just a checkbox). The (dubious) uniqueness of a handwritten signature is nonessential.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    In most every case, circumstantial evidence and witnesses can establish if the party that purportedly signed a document did in fact do so. The CEO of a company can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." So why do we bother to sign documents? Most of all, its a symbolic gesture intended to signal (to the parties and witnesses) the attachment of legal rights and obligations. It avoids disputes such as "yeah, he presented me with that document, but it was a proposal and I never agreed to it."

mikeryan 11y ago

I get what was done, but what was the upside for the Paralegal? Was he getting kickbacks or something?

the_hangman 11y ago

While this indictment makes it clear what he is charged with, it doesn't seem to imply any sort of motive. Any ideas? Another article on the subject[1] gives me the impression that the goal may have been simply to speed the process up but I'm not experienced in anything related to this.. [1]: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374928.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374...

duskwuff 11y ago
Possibly to get settlements "approved" which would otherwise have been rejected, or which they didn't want to bring to a judge's attention for whatever reason?
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Makes sense, but why? Was someone paying him a share? Was someone telling him he had to do it to keep his job? Most people won't forge something unless there's something in it for them.
  - imauld 11y ago
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Wouldn't shock me at all if he just didn't feel like going to get them signed.
MaysonL 11y ago
Kickbacks.

rconti 11y ago

Are daytime TV ads really that cheap, or are there so many people with structured settlements out there (from what?) that buying them is a profitable business to be in? On the other hand, if you're buying for pennies on the dollar and only need a tiny staff...

fredkbloggs 11y ago
With interest rates at zero, any stream of income is going to be attacked ferociously.

Someone1234 11y ago

Signatures aren't secure, but that misses the point. In this instance the signatures are used as evidence that those transfers were sent, reviewed, and approved by a judge. Had it been done a verifiable document trail would exist. In this instance when it was discovered the signatures were faked (or cloned), they could go look at the document trail and it was quickly discovered that none existed. People will likely suggest other alternatives to signatures, like a unique serial number, but ultimately if people aren't verifying the document trail in the signature case, they won't verify it with a unique ID case, or most other clever means you can come up with (e.g. QR code, some kind of complex crypo method, etc). If it is a document that allows faxing and photocopying, and nobody is taking the time to verify the authenticity of it, there are no more secure systems you can create. Things like holograms, specialist paper inlays, seals, etc can easily be faked during fax/copy. Signatures are about as good/bad as anything else. The legal system is built on trust, verify, and punish.

numbsafari 11y ago

[1] The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. All factual recitations are derived from documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court. The headline of this should really read "Paralegal charged with forging signatures of 76 justices to reach structured settlements". Even the linked document itself makes this distinction and carries the above footnote.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
In the US, the public always presumes guilt until proven innocent. Then we still have our doubts.
- numbsafari 11y ago
  In the US ... you mean everywhere. It's not like vigilantism and rushing to judgement is somehow a uniquely US trait.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    I don't live anywhere else, so I can't really speak to that.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

I feel sorry for the senior partners in this law firm. The poor hard working lawyers were callously duped by this master criminal and paralegal, they took his word that those dubious sales had been approved and never even checked his paperwork. And now look, he has skipped town, they are bischmirced in name, cannot hold their heads up at next weeks charity tennis match. It's awful.

veryluckyxyz 11y ago

Title is incorrect. In its current form, the title gives the impression that paralegal forged Judges' signatures to reach structured settlements. However, the paralegal forged judges' signature to help clients of his law firm acquire (the documents also uses the word "transfer") structured settlements awarded to individuals, presumably for a one-time payment.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]