
Former paralegal charged with forging the signatures of NY state justices - mlissner
http://manhattanda.org/press-release/da-vance-former-paralegal-charged-forging-signatures-76-state-supreme-court-justices
======
mlissner
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-compa...](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)

~~~
hsod
"Developmental problems" is a funny way of describing people who understand
the concept of present value.

~~~
mikeash
Accepting $20,000 for a cash stream worth $180,000 doesn't indicate much
understanding of present value.

~~~
viraptor
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
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
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.

~~~
mikeash
In a typical situation, no. But this is very much atypical. The person in
question has a guaranteed source of long-term income. It's better than any
job; they'll never get fired, or get fed up and decide not to come in anymore.
It sounds like you can even redirect the payments so they go directly to the
company making the lump-sum payment. The only risk is bankruptcy by the payer.
It ought to be safer than a high-quality mortgage or car loan, which right now
are available at 4% or less. (My car loan is 1.11%, which is completely
ridiculous and not all that unusual.)

~~~
viraptor
"It _may_ make perfect sense." I didn't say it makes sense in most situations.

------
Someone1234
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.

------
wanderfowl
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
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
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?

~~~
rayiner
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."

~~~
antsar
> can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in
> evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow."

Is this true? An email showing _intent_ to sign a contract, combined with a
signature that somewhat resembles my own, is sufficient proof for a court that
I actually signed that contract? That seems somewhat crazy.

~~~
rayiner
Why does that seem crazy? Think about it statistically: you have evidence of
intent to sign a contract, and a signed contract consistent with that
evidence. In what percentage of cases was the contract actually not signed?
Compare that to the burden of proof in a civil case--"more likely than not."

~~~
antsar
I guess I assumed when they say "innocent until proven guilty", "proven"
implies hard evidence, not just two facts that _suggest_ that an event
occurred.

~~~
tptacek
Defendants have a presumption of innocence, but accusers do not have a burden
of _mathematical proof_. The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty"
in US law is common law's _Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit_ , and the Latin
word "probatio" does a lot more work than just "mathematical proof".

There's a good 30 minute Google jag you can have about this if you go search
for [legal standards of proof].

~~~
rayiner
> The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty" in US law is common
> law's Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and the Latin word "probatio" does a
> lot more work than just "mathematical proof".

TIL.

~~~
tptacek
I am presuming that's a sarcastic way of saying "you're wrong"?

~~~
rayiner
Not at all! Just expressing that I learned both a new latin legal term and a
fact about latin vocabulary today.

------
numbsafari
_[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
In the US, the public always presumes guilt until proven innocent. Then we
still have our doubts.

~~~
numbsafari
_In the US_ ... you mean everywhere. It's not like vigilantism and rushing to
judgement is somehow a uniquely US trait.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
I don't live anywhere else, so I can't really speak to that.

------
the_hangman
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/2015/07/14/374...](http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374928.htm)

~~~
duskwuff
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
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
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.

------
lifeisstillgood
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.

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

------
veryluckyxyz
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.

------
ploxiln
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)

------
rconti
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
With interest rates at zero, any stream of income is going to be attacked
ferociously.

