UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 3:12-cr- \ 18 ...--:s- c.:S M '- ~ 

v. 

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 

LORRAINE BROWN 

INFORMATION 

The United States Attorney charges: 

COUNT ONE 

(Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud) 

Background 

At all times material herein, unless otherwise specified: 

1. LORRAINE BROWN, a resident of Georgia, founded DocX LLC 

(hereinafter, "DocX") in the 1990s in Ohio. In the early 2000s, Brown relocated 

the bulk of DocX's operations to Alpharetta, Georgia (the Alpharetta operations 

of DocX LLC are referred to herein as "DocX" regardless of the time frame). 

2. In mid-2005, Jacksonville, Florida based Fidelity National Financial, 

Inc. ("FNF") purchased DocX from Brown and her partners. Through corporate 

reorganizations within FNF, DocX later fell under ownership of Fidelity National 

Information Services, Inc. ("FNIS"). In mid-2008, FNIS spun off a number of 

business lines into a new publicly-traded entity, Lender Processing Services, Inc. 

("LPS"), based in Jacksonville, Florida. At that time, DocX was rebranded as 

EXHIBIT 

A 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 28
"LPS Document Solutions, a Division of LPS." Following this spin-off, Brown was 

the President and Senior Managing Director of LPS Document Solutions, which 

constituted DocX's operations in Alpharetta. At all times relevant to this 

Information, Brown was the chief executive of the DocX operations. 

3. DocX's main clients were residential mortgage servicers (the 

"servicers"), which typically undertake certain actions for the owners of 

mortgage-backed promissory notes. These duties include, among others, 

accepting and recording mortgage payments, paying taxes and insurance from 

borrower escrow accounts, and conducting or supervising the foreclosure 

process when necessary. 

4. Servicers hired DocX to perform a number of these actions, 

including assisting in creating and executing mortgage-related documents filed 

with recorders' offices. The majority of documents created and recorded by DocX 

between 2003 and 2009 were lien releases, which evidence payment in full of a 

mortgage-backed note. DocX also executed mortgage assignments, which 

purport to transfer the note's ownership interest. Mortgage assignments were 

typically created during the foreclosure process, and the volume of these 

documents dramatically increased at DocX during the foreclosure crisis of 2007 

to 2009. DocX also signed lost note and lost assignment affidavits related to 

mortgage documents. 

2 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 28
5. From at least March 2003 through November 2009, Brown 

marketed DocX as an outsourcing solution to mortgage servicers for filing and 

recording mortgage documents throughout the United States. Brown 

represented to clients that DocX had robust quality control procedures in place to 

ensure a thorough and proper signing, notarization, and recordation process. As 

a result of these representations, clients hired DocX. 

6. When hiring DocX to sign documents, servicers typically issued 

special corporate resolutions delegating document execution authority to 

specific, authorized, and trained personnel at DocX. The DocX employees who 

were given express signing authority from DocX's clients and who, as 

represented by Brown, were purportedly trained to ensure that the clients' 

documents were properly created, signed, and notarized were called "Authorized 

Signers." These documents were then generally recorded by DocX with the 

appropriate local property recorders' offices throughout the country. 

3 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 28
The Conspiracy and its Objects 

7. From in or about 2005 through in or about October 2009 at 

Jacksonville in the Middle District of Florida, Alpharetta, Georgia, and elsewhere 

throughout the United States, 

LORRAINE BROWN, 

the defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate 

and agree with others to commit certain offenses, to wit: 

a. execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to 

defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and 

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United 

States mail and private and commercial interstate carriers, for the purpose of 

executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 1341; and, 

b. execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to 

defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and 

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by transmitting and causing 

to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign 

commerce, writings, signs, visual pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of 

executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 1343. 

4 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 28
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy and Scheme and Artifice 

8. The manner and means by which Brown, co-conspirators, and 

others sought to accomplish the purposes and objectives of the conspiracy 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. Beginning in or about 2005, employees of DocX, at the 

direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures on the 

mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with 

property recorders' offices throughout the United States. 

b. Unbeknownst to DocX's clients, the Authorized Signers were 

instructed by Brown and other DocX employees to allow other, unauthorized, 

DocX employees to sign, and to have the document notarized as if the actual 

Authorized Singer had executed the document. 

c. Brown also hired temporary workers to sign as Authorized 

Signers. These temporary employees worked for much lower costs and without 

the quality control represented by Brown to DocX's clients. In fact, some of 

these temporary workers were able to sign thousands of documents a day. 

These mortgage-related documents were fraudulently notarized by DocX 

employees even though the Authorized Signer did not actually sign the 

document. 

d. These unauthorized signing and notarization practices 

allowed DocX, Brown, and others to generate greater profit and make more 

money. 

5 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 5 of 28
e. After these false documents were signed and notarized, 

DocX filed them through the mails or by electronic methods with local county 

property records offices. Many of these documents, particularly mortgage 

assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits, were later relied upon in 

court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy 

court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received 

the documents such as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these 

documents as genuine. 

f. Brown and others also took various steps to conceal their 

actions from detection from clients, LPS corporate headquarters, law 

enforcement authorities, and others. 

Overt Acts 

9. On or about August 13, 2008, Brown caused to be delivered to 

Jacksonville, Florida, by commercial interstate carrier from DocX, an Assignment 

of Mortgage filed with the Clerk of Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, which 

Assignment of Mortgage had been executed on August 12, 2008, with false and 

fraudulent signatures of Authorized Signers and which bore a false and 

fraudulent notarization attestation. 

10. On or about February 23, 2009, Brown caused a DocX business 

client to make a payment by electronic funds transfer of $357, 185.60, in 

6 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 6 of 28
.• 

interstate commerce, from a financial institution in Iowa to a DocX account held 

at a financial institution in Georgia. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 

ROBERT E. O'NEILL 

United States Attorney 

By: '7!1~~¥- MARKB.DEVEREAUX 

MAC D. HEAVENER, Ill 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Deputy Chief, Jacksonville Division 

DENIS MclNERNEY 

Chief, Fraud Section - Criminal Division 

United States Dept. of Justice 

By: 

7 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 7 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

V. 

LORRAINE BROWN 

PLEA AGREEMENT 

....... :.. ~~. ~ ~ ...... ,,,. {' Li 

~ -u~ .,._., .. -·~' .i . . u~...,,, ·< 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (c), the United States of America by and through 

United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill and United 

States Department of Justice Criminal Division - Fraud Section Chief Denis Mcinerney 

(hereinafter also referred to as "the Government" or the "United States"), and the 

defendant Lorraine Brown with defendant's attorney f\11ark Rosenblum, Esq., agree as 

follows: 

A Particularized Terms 

1. Count Pleading To 

The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. 

Count One charges the defendant with Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. 

2. Maximum Penalties 

Count One carries a maximum sentence of up to five (5) years 

imprisonment, a fine of up to a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain 

or twice the gross pecuniary loss occasioned by the offense, a term of supervised 

Defendant's Initials~ AF Approval 6.iJ-

* EXHIBIT 

I a 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 8 of 28
release of not more than three (3) years, and a special assessment of $100, said 

special assessment to be due on the date of sentencing. With respect to certain 

offenses, the Court shall order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the 

offense, and with respect to other offenses, the Court may order the defendant to make 

restitution to any victim of the offense, or to the community, as set forth below. 

3. Elements of the Offense 

The defendant acknowledges understanding the nature and elements of 

the offense with which defendant has been charged and to which defendant is pleading 

guilty. The elements of Count One are: 

First: 

Second: 

That two or more persons, in some way or manner, 

agreed to try to accomplish a common and unlawful 

plan to commit mail fraud or wire fraud, as charged in 

the information; 

The Defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and 

willfully joined in it; and 

One of the conspirators committed an overt act in 

furtherance of the conspiracy. 

4. No Further Charges 

If the Court accepts this plea agreement, the United States Attorney's 

Office for the Middle District of Florida and the United States Department of Justice 

agree not to charge defendant with committing any other federal criminal offenses 

known to the Government at the time of the execution of this agreement related to the 

conduct giving rise to this plea agreement. 

c_~/ Defendant's Initials~ 2 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 9 of 28
5. Mandatory Restitution to Victim of Offense of Conviction 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a) and (b), defendant agrees to make full 

restitution to any victims of the offense, as determined by the Court at sentencing. 

6. Acceptance of Responsibility - Three Levels 

At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse information is 

received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted, the United States will 

not oppose the defendant's request to the Court that the defendant receive a two-level 

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG §3E1 .1 (a). 

The defendant understands that this recommendation or request is not binding on the 

Court, and if not accepted by the Court, the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw 

from the plea. 

Further, at the time of sentencing, if the defendant's offense level prior to 

operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and if the defendant complies with the 

provisions of USSG §3E1 .1 (b), the United States agrees to file a motion pursuant to 

USSG §3E1 .1 (b) for a downward adjustment of one additional level. The defendant 

understands that the determination as to whether the defendant has qualified for a 

downward adjustment of a third level for acceptance of responsibility rests solely with 

the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and the defendant agrees 

that the defendant cannot and will not challenge that determination, whether by appeal, 

collateral attack, or otherwise. 

Defendant's Initials~ 3 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 10 of 28
7. Forfeiture of Assets 

The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States immediately and voluntarily 

any and all assets and property, or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. 981 and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c), whether in the possession or control of the United 

States or in the possession or control of the defendant or defendant's nominees. The 

property and the amount of proceeds to be forfeited to the United States will be 

determined by the Court at or before the sentencing hearing. The defendant agrees 

and consents to the forfeiture of these assets pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, 

and/or administrative forfeiture action. The defendant also hereby agrees that the 

forfeiture described herein is not excessive and, in any event, the defendant waives any 

constitutional claims that the defendant may have that the forfeiture constitutes an 

14/,!JLJ 

excessive fine. The defendant agrees that the United States shall, at its option, be 

entitled to the forfeiture of any property (substitute assets) of the defendant up to the 

/f).tJ[) 

value of the money judgment. 

The defendant admits and agrees that the conduct described in the Factual 

Basis below provides a sufficient factual and statutory basis for the forfeiture of the 

property sought by the Government. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 32.2(b)(1 ), the 

United States and the defendant request that at the time of accepting this plea 

agreement, the court make a determination that the Government has established the 

requisite nexus between the property subject to forfeiture and the offense(s) to which 

defendant is pleading guilty and enter a preliminary order of forfeiture. Pursuant to 

Rule 32.2(b)(4), the defendant agrees that the preliminary order of forfeiture shall be 

final as to the defendant at the time it is entered, notwithstanding the requirement that it 

be made a part of t~ence and be included in the judgment. 

Defendant's Initials /Iv----- 4 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 11 of 28
The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in the properties described 

above and to take whatever steps are necessary to pass clear title to the United States. 

These steps include, but are not limited to, the surrender of title, the signing of a 

consent decree of forfeiture, and signing of any other documents necessary to 

effectuate such transfers. 

Defendant further agrees to take all steps necessary to locate property 

and to pass title to the United States before the defendant's sentencing. To that end, 

defendant agrees to fully assist the Government in the recovery and return to the United 

States of any assets, or portions thereof, as described above wherever located. The 

defendant agrees to make a full and complete disclosure of all assets over which 

defendant exercises control and those which are held or controlled by a nominee. The 

defendant further agrees to be polygraphed on the issue of assets, if it is deemed 

necessary by the United States. 

The defendant agrees that the United States is not limited to forfeiture of 

the property described above. If the United States determines that property of the 

defendant identified for forfeiture cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; has been placed 

beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has 

been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; then the 

United States shall, at its option, be entitled to forfeiture of any other property (substitute 

assets) of the defendant up to the value of any property described above. This Court 

shall retain jurisdiction to settle any disputes arising from application of this clause. The 

Defendanfs Initials*- 5 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 12 of 28
defendant agrees that forfeiture of substitut~ assets as authorized herein shall not be 

deemed an alteration of the defendant's sentence. 

Forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of 

any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this Court may impose 

upon the defendant in addition to forfeiture. 

8. Concurrent Sentencing 

The United States agrees not to oppose any argument by the Defendant 

with the sentencing Court that any sentence imposed by the Court run concurrent with 

any sentences imposed by any state courts for state criminal charges generally based 

upon the conduct underlying the instant plea. Should there be a sentence imposed by 

any other state court, it is the parties' intention that any sentence ordered by the Court 

in this case be served prior to any remaining time on any such state terms of 

imprisonment. This agreement in no way limits the Court's authority to render whatever 

!awful sentence it deems appropriate in this case. 

9. Cooperation with Ongoing Prosecutions of Others 

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 

Defendant's Initials _tr_ 6 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 13 of 28
other objects in defendant's possession or control, and to be reasonably available for 

interviews which the United States may require. 

B. Standard Terms and Conditions 

1. Restitution. Special Assessment and Fine 

The defendant understands and agrees that the Court, in addition to or in 

lieu of any other penalty, shall order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of 

the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for all offenses described in 18 U.S.C. § 

3663A(c)(1) (limited to offenses committed on or after April 24, 1996); and the Court 

may order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense(s), pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3663 (limited to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 

including restitution as to all counts charged, whether or not the defendant enters a plea 

of guilty to such counts, and whether or not such counts are dismissed pursuant to this 

agreement. On each count to which a plea of guilty is entered, the Court shall impose a 

special assessment, to be payable to the Clerk's Office, United States District Court, 

and due on date of sentencing. The defendant understands that this agreement 

imposes no limitation as to fine. 

2. Supervised Release 

The defendant understands that the offense(s) to which the defendant is 

pleading provide(s) for imposition of a term of supervised release upon release from 

imprisonment, and that, if the defendant should violate the conditions of release, the 

defendant would be subject to a further term of imprisonment. 

Defendant's Initials~ 7 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 14 of 28
3. Sentencing Information 

The United States reserves its right and obligation to report to the Court 

and the United States Probation Office all information concerning the background, 

character, and conduct of the defendant, to provide relevant factual information, 

including the totality of the defendant's criminal activities, if any, n()t limited to the 

count(s) to which defendant pleads, to respond to comments made by the defendant or 

defendant's counsel, and to correct any misstatements or inaccuracies. The United 

States further reserves its right to make any recommendations it deems appropriate 

regarding the disposition of this case, subject to any limitations set forth herein, if any. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(2)(A)(ii), 

the defendant agrees to complete and submit, upon execution of this plea agreement, 

an affidavit reflecting the defendant's financial condition. The defendant further agrees, 

and by the execution of this plea agreement, authorizes the United States Attorney's 

Office to provide to, and obtain from, the United States Probation Office, the financial 

affidavit, any of the defendant's federal, state, and local tax returns, bank records and 

any other financial information concerning the defendant, for the purpose of making any 

recommendations to the Court and for collecting any assessments, fines, restitution, or 

forfeiture ordered by the Court. 

4. Sentencing Recommendations 

It is understood by the parties that the Court is neither a party to nor 

bound by this agreement. The Court may accept or reject the agreement, or defer a 

decision until it has had an opportunity to consider the presentence report prepared _by 

Defendant's Initials~ 8 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 15 of 28
the United States Probation Office. The defendant understands and acknowledges that, 

although the parties are permitted to make recommendations and present arguments to 

the Court, the sentence will be determined solely by the Court, with the assistance of 

the United States Probation Office. Defendant further understands and acknowledges 

that any discussions between defendant or defendant's attorney and the attorney or 

other agents for the Government regarding any recommendations by the Government 

are not binding on the Court and that, should any recommendations be rejected, 

defendant will not be permitted to withdraw defendant's plea pursuant to this plea 

agreement. The Government expressly reserves the right to support and defend any 

decision that the Court may make with regard to the defendant's sentence, whether or 

not such decision is consistent with the Government's recommendations contained 

herein. 

5. Defendant's Waiver of Right to Appeal 

The defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction and authority to 

impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum and expressly waives the right to 

appeal defendant's sentence on any ground, including the ground that the Court erred 

in determining the applicable guidelines range pursuant to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines, except (a) the ground that the sentence exceeds the defendant's applicable 

guidelines range as determined by the Court pursuant to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines; (b) the ground that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty; or 

(c) the ground that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; 

provided, however, that if the Government exercises its right to appeal the sentence 

Defendant's Initials:&._ 9 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 16 of 28
imposed, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), then the defendant is released from his 

waiver and may appeal the sentence as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

6. Middle District of Florida and Criminal Division Agreement 

It is further understood that this agreement is limited to the Office of the 

United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida and the United States 

Department of Justice Criminal Division - Fraud Section and cannot bind other federal, 

state, or local prosecuting authorities, although these offices will bring defendant's 

cooperation, if any, to the attention of other prosecuting officers or others, if requested. 

7. Filing of Agreement 

This agreement shall be presented to the Court, in open court or in 

camera, in whole or in part, upon a showing of good cause, and filed in this cause, at 

the time of defendant's entry of a plea of guilty pursuant hereto. 

8. Voluntariness 

The defendant acknowledges that defendant is entering into this 

agreement and is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily without reliance upon any 

discussions between the attorneys for the Government and the defendant and 

defendant's attorney and without promise of benefit of any kind (other than the 

concessions contained herein), and without threats, force, intimidation, or coercion of 

any kind. The defendant further acknowledges defendant's understanding of the nature 

of the offense or offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty and the elements 

thereof, including the penalties provided by law, and defendant's complete satisfaction 

with the representation and advice received from defendant's undersigned counsel (if 

Defendant's Initials~ 10 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 17 of 28
any). The defendant also understands that defendant has the right to plead not guilty or 

to persist in that plea if it has already been made, and that defendant has the right to be 

tried by a jury with the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine 

the witnesses against defendant, the right against compulsory self-incrimination, and 

the right to compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses to testify in defendant's 

defense; but, by pleading guilty, defendant waives or gives up those rights and there will 

be no trial. The defendant further understands that if defendant pleads guilty, the Court 

may ask defendant questions about the offense or offenses to which defendant 

pleaded, and if defendant answers those questions under oath, on the record, and in 

the presence of counsel (if any), defendant's answers may later be used against 

defendant in a prosecution for perjury or false statement. The defendant also 

understands that defendant will be adjudicated guilty of the offenses to which defendant 

has pleaded and, if any of such offenses are felonies, may thereby be deprived of 

certain rights, such as the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, or to 

have possession of firearms. 

9. Factual Basis 

Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The 

defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth in the 

attached "Factual Basis," which is incorporated herein by reference, are true, and were 

this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and 

others beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Defendant's Initials~ 11 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 18 of 28
10. Entire Agreement 

This plea agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the 

Government and the defendant with respect to the aforementioned guilty plea and no 

other promises, agreements, or representations exist or have been made to the 

defendant or defendant's attorney with regard to such guilty plea. 

Defendant's Initials~ 12 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 19 of 28
11. Certification 

The defendant and defendant's counsel certify that this plea agreement 

has been read in its entirety by (or has been read to) the defendant and that defendant 

fully understands its terms. 

DATED this /j day of November, 2012. 

ROBERT E. O'NEILL 

United States Attorney 

~WiRrf;.~ By:~~~ Defendant Assistant United States Attorney 

~ Attorney for Defendant ~HEAVENER,111 Assistant United States Attorney 

Deputy Chief, Jacksonville Division 

By: 

Defendant's Initials~ 13 

DENIS MclNERNEY 

Chief, Fraud Section - Criminal Division 

United States Dept. of Justice 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 20 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case No. 3:12 

LORRAINE BROWN 

PERSONALIZATION OF ELEMENTS 

1. Do you admit that at least from 2005 and continuing thereafter until in or 

about October 2009, in Duval county, in the Middle District of Florida, Alpharetta, 

Georgia, and elsewhere, that two or more persons, in some way or manner, agreed to 

try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to commit mail and wire fraud, as 

charged in the information? 

2. Do you admit you knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully 

joined in it? 

Defendant's Initials t 14 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 21 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case No. 3:12 

LORRAINE BROWN 

FACTUAL BASIS 

At a trial of this case, the United States would be prepared to prove beyond 

reasonable doubt the following facts: 

BACKGROUND 

Brown. DocX. and LPS 

The defendant, Lorraine Brown (hereinafter "Brown"), founded DocX LLC in the 

1990s in Ohio. As discussed more fully below, DocX LLC was involved in the 

preparation and recordation of mortgage-related documents throughout the country. In 

the early 2000s, Brown relocated the bulk of DocX LLC's operations to Alpharetta, 

Georgia - a suburb of Atlanta. (The Alpharetta operations of DocX LLC are referred to 

herein as "DocX" regardless of the timeframe and corporate ownership.) 

In mid-2005, Jacksonville, Florida-based Fidelity National Financial, Inc. ("FNF") 

purchased DocX from Brown and her partners for approximately $6 million. Through 

corporate reorganizations within FNF, DocX later fell under ownership of Fidelity 

National Information Services, Inc. ("FNIS"). In mid-2008, FNIS spun off a number of 

business lines into a new publicly-traded entity, Lender Processing Services, Inc. 

Defendant's Initials~ 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 22 of 28
I 

i 

I 

l 

("LPS"), based in Jacksonville, Florida. At that time, DocX was rebranded as "LPS 

Document Solutions, a Division of LPS." Following this spin-off, Brown was the 

President and Senior Managing Director of LPS Document Solutions, which constituted 

DocX's operations. At all times relevant to this statement of facts, Brown was the chief 

executive of DocX. 

DocX's Operations 

DocX's main clients were residential mortgage servicers (the "servicers''), which 

typically undertake certain actions for mortgage lenders. These duties include, among 

others, accepting and recording mortgage payments, paying taxes and insurance from 

borrower escrow accounts, and conducting or supervising the foreclosure process when 

necessary. 

DocX maintained a proprietary system called the Recorders Information 

Database ("RID"), which contained the various filing requirements and fees imposed by 

each of the thousands of county recorders' offices throughout the United States. DocX's 

servicer-clients could pay for access to the RID database. Clients could also hire DocX 

to assist in creating and executing mortgage-related documents filed with recorders' 

offices. The majority of documents created and recorded by DocX between 2003 and 

2009 were lien releases, which evidence payment in full of a mortgage-backed note. 

DocX also executed mortgage assignments, which purport to transfer the note's 

ownership interest. Mortgage assignments were typically created during the foreclosure 

process, and the Volume of these documents dramatically increased at DocX during the 

foreclosure crisis of 2007 to 2009. DocX also signed lost note and lost assignment 

affidavits related to mortgage documents. 

Defendant's Initials ~ ./ 2 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 23 of 28
From at least March 2003 through November 2009, Brown marketed DocX as an 

outsourcing solution to mortgage servicers for filing and recording mortgage documents 

throughout the United States. Brown represented to clients that DocX had robust quality 

control procedures in place to ensure a thorough and proper signing, notarization, and 

recordation process. As a result of these representations, clients hired DocX. 

When hiring DocX to sign documents, servicers typically issued special corporate 

resolutions delegating document execution authority to specific, authorized, and trained 

personnel at DocX. The DocX employees who were given express signing authority 

from OocX's clients and who, as represented by Brown, were purportedly trained to 

ensure that the clients' documents were properly created, signed, and notarized were 

called "Authorized Signers." These documents were then generally recorded by DocX 

with the appropriate local property recorders' offices throughout the country. 

In exchange for this service, DocX was paid a fee by its clients that varied from 

approximately $5 to $15 per document depending upon, among other items, the type of 

document and client. Between 2003 and 2009, DocX generated approximately $60 

million in gross revenue. 

Defendant's Initials~ 3 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 24 of 28
THE SCHEME 

False Signing and Fraudulent Notarization 

Beginning in or about 2003 and continuing through November 2009, employees 

of DocX at the direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures on 

the mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with 

property recorders' offices throughout the United States. Unbeknownst to the clients, 

the Authorized Signers were instructed or authorized by Brown to allow other DocX 

employees, who were not Authorized Signers, to sign and notarize the mortgage-related 

documents as if the actually executed by the Authorized Signer. 

For example, one of Brown's co-conspirators who was a member of Brown's 

senior management team, after being named an Authorized Signer for a client, sent an 

e-mail to a colleague stating that she actually had no intention of ever signing a single 

document. Rather, Brown's co-conspirator planned on using other employees to sign 

the documents on her behalf, knowing that those documents would also be notarized as 

if the co-conspirator herself had actually signed the document. Thus, even through 

clients were told that a senior DocX manager would be preparing and signing the client 

documents, there was never any intention to do so. 

Brown implemented these signing practices at DocX to enable DocX (and Brown) 

to generate greater profit. Specifically, DocX was able to create, execute, and file larger 

volumes of documents using these signing and notarization practices. More documents 

meant more money. To further increase profits, DocX also hired temporary workers to 

sign as Authorized Signers. These temporary employees worked for much lower costs 

and without the quality control represented by Brown to DocX's clients. In fact, some of 

Defendant's Initials--¥- 4 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 25 of 28
these temporary workers were able to sign thousands of documents a day. 

After these documents were falsely signed and fraudulently notarized, Brown 

authorized DocX employees to send them through the mails or by electronic methods 

for recording with local county property records offices across the nation. Many of these 

documents - particularly mortgage assignments, lost note affidavits, and lost 

assignment affidavits - were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property 

foreclosures and federal bankruptcy actions. Brown understood that these property 

recorders, courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied upon the documents as 

genuine. 

Indeed, on at least one occasion, in or around 2005 an official with a county 

recorder's office in California called DocX after noticing that DocX submitted a number 

of documents obviously falsified signatures. The official told DocX employees that these 

documents were fraudulent. DocX then re-filed these documents with that county after 

properly signing and notarizing them. Brown was aware of this incident. 

The exact number of documents created by DocX with fraudulent signature and 

notarizations is presently unknown. It is estimated, however, that between 2003 and 

2009 well over 1 million such documents were executed and filed with property 

recorders' offices across the nation. 

Efforts to Conceal 

While engaging in this scheme to charge fees to DocX clients for products and 

services that the clients never received, Brown and others took various steps to conceal 

their actions from detection. 

Defendant's Initials~ 5 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 26 of 28
Brown and her co-conspirators took actions to conceal the fake signatures and 

false notarization. For example, Brown's co-conspirator, at Brown's direction and 

authorization, trained new DocX signers to mimic the actual signatures of the 

Authorized Signers, and then tested them on their ability to do so before signing client 

documents. To assist in the scheme, samples of the actual Authorized Signers' 

signatures were taped to the signing tables. To provide an additional layer of sham 

authenticity, the documents were then falsely notariz13d. Brown authorized or directed 

these practices. 

Additional acts of concealment were taken. After certain DocX employees raised 

concerns about the legality of the signing practices, Brown developed official-looking, inhouse sigriing policies purporting to delegate signing authority from the Authorized 

Signers to other DocX employees. Starting in 2003, the policy was called "Facsimile 

Signature." In early 2009, the practice was labeled "Surrogate Signing." 

Brown and her co-conspirators also concealed their conduct from clients, 

instructing DocX employees to hide their signing practices during client visits. Further, 

Brown hid DocX's signing practices from LPS's corporate headquarters. For example, 

in mid-2009, LPS auditors visited Alpharetta to conduct a risk assessment of DocX. 

Prior to the visit, Brown provided documents to the auditors describing the process 

DocX used in executing documents. Brown deliberately concealed from the auditors 

that the above-described signing practices were being used at that time. 

Further Acts of Deception and Attempted Cover-Up 

In October 2009, an individual sent a letter to LPS corporate headquarte~s in 

Jacksonville, Florida alleging fraud and forgery in the execution of documents related to 

Defendant's Initials c& ./ 6 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 27 of 28
his mortgage by DocX. Upon receipt of the letter, LPS corporate representatives 

confronted Brown. Brown falsely stated that she was unaware of DocX's signing 

. practices and blamed the conduct on two "rogue" employees. Shortly thereafter, LPS 

terminated Brown's employment. 

Even after she was fired, Brown attempted to conceal her role in the scheme. 

Specifically, on February 9, 2010, Brown was interviewed by an agent with the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). During that interview, Brown made several material 

false statements to the FBI, including the following: (i) at no time did Brown instruct any 

individual at DocX to pursue the "Surrogate Signing" practices for the business; (ii) 

Brown was unaware of DocX's "Surrogate Signer'' program and was never informed by 

her management staff that they were engaging in such activity with their clients' 

financial documentation; and (iii) Brown did not learn of DocX's use of the "Surrogate 

Signer" program until LPS corporate personnel first contacted her in October 2009. 

Ms. Brown knowingly made these false statements to the FBI in an effort to further 

conceal her role in the scheme. 

Defendant's Initials c.gr 7 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 64-1 Filed 06/23/15 Page 28 of 28