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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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..
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?
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.
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.
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
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...
[+] [-] mlissner|10 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] zerocrates|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ojgeojgaew|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hsod|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numbsafari|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_hangman|10 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] duskwuff|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaysonL|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veryluckyxyz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ploxiln|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|10 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if you're buying for pennies on the dollar and only need a tiny staff...
[+] [-] fredkbloggs|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]