Source: http://certifiedforensicloanauditors.com/articles/07.16/annotations-for-penal-code-115.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:07:56+00:00

Document:
Offering forged docs for recordings. Use Penal Code 132 and 134 felony for preparing for offering or OFFERING a false or fabrication.
You might find something of value in the Penal Code for Prosecuting those who filed and recorded False documents, after you completeted and Posted your rescission/Cancellation documents to any alleged Lender.
The trial court erred in failing to dismiss an amended information in which defendant was charged with 10 counts of forgery, Pen C § 470, and 10 counts of presenting a false or forged document for recording, Pen C § 115.
The counts contained in the amended information and the counts contained in the original information for which a guilty verdict had been reversed for insufficient evidence were based on the identical conduct. Since defendant's conviction was reversed for insufficiency of evidence, Pen C §§ 1262 and 1009 had no application to the case. While it is true that a defendant may be retried when a conviction is reversed for trial error, retrial on the same charge is impermissible if the reversal is based on insufficiency of the evidence.
The prosecution here made a deliberate choice of prosecuting defendant originally on grand theft charges, while all along knowing that the identical evidence could support forgery and filing false document charges.
Defendant's prosecution on the new information was barred by Pen C § 654(a). Sanders v. Superior Court (1999, 2nd Dist) 76 Cal App 4th 609, 90 Cal Rptr 2d 481, 1999 Cal App LEXIS 1018.
Pen C § 115, stating that every person who offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered or recorded in any public office is guilty of a felony, was designed to prevent the recordation of spurious documents knowingly offered for record. In the case of a deed, the crime is complete when the deed has been prepared so that upon its face it will have the effect of defrauding one who acts upon it as genuine. It is not necessary to constitute a completed offense that anyone actually be defrauded. A violation of the statute does not require a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another, that is, a forgery. The statute differentiates between the two categories, clearly proscribing either a false or a forged instrument.
Obviously, an instrument may have the effect of defrauding one who acts on it as genuine even though it does not bear a forged signature or otherwise meet the technical requirements of a forged instrument. Generes v. Justice Court (1980) 106 CA3d 678, 165 Cal Rptr 222, 1980 Cal App LEXIS 1908.
An altered temporary restraining order was an "instrument" for purposes of Pen C § 115 (filing false instrument). Thus, defendant's conviction of violating § 115 was not improper, where he had obtained an ex parte order enjoining his former girlfriend from contacting or harassing him, and had added false requirements to the order before filing it with the marshal. Although prior case law had required that a document represent an agreement in order to qualify as an "instrument," a more recent appellate court opinion rejected this requirement. Subsequently, the Legislature extensively revised § 115, leading to the presumption that the more recent case was approved.
Moreover, the amendments to § 115 demonstrate a legislative intent to protect judicial and public records such as the temporary restraining order. People v. Parks (1992, 4th Dist) 7 Cal App 4th 883, 9 Cal Rptr 2d 450, 1992 Cal App LEXIS 811.
Materiality is not an element of the offense of offering a false or forged instrument for record (Pen C § 115). The terms of § 115 do not suggest materiality is an element of the offense. The core purpose of § 115 is to protect the integrity and reliability of public records. This purpose is served by an interpretation that prohibits any knowing falsification of public records.
Accordingly, a court may not insert into § 115 a requirement of materiality that the Legislature did not see fit to include. People v. Feinberg (1997, 1st Dist) 51 Cal App 4th 1566, 60 Cal Rptr 2d 323, 1997 Cal App LEXIS 17.

References: § 470
 § 115
 § 654
 v. 
 § 115
 v. 
 § 115
 § 115
 § 115
 § 115
 v. 
 § 115
 § 115
 § 115
 § 115
 v.