Northstar Mortgage, LLC Final Order v 1

FILED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING 2011 JAN 14 PM 2:44 PA DEPT OF BANKING

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, BUREAU OF : Docket No.: 070017 (OSC) COMPLIANCE, INVESTIGATION AND : Docket No.: 070027 (OSC) LICENSING, : Docket No.: 070028 (OSC) : Docket No.: 070029 (OSC) v. : Docket No.: 070033 (OSC) : Docket No.: 070035 (OSC) NORTHSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, PAUL : FENELLE AND LEONARDO D'ELIA, : OWNERS, KEITH DOUGLAS BUCHANAN, : KIMBERLY FRIEDMAN, DUANE BEERS, : MICHAEL GILBERT AND JENIQUE : CHANG. :

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

You, NorthStar Mortgage, LLC, Paul Fenelle and Leonardo D'Elia, Keith Douglas Buchanan, Kimberly Friedman, Duane Beers and Michael Gilbert, are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the attached Final Determination and Order (the "Order") issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking.

If you wish to appeal the attached Order you must file a petition for review with the Prothonotary of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court within 30 days of the date of mailing of the attached Order, in accordance with and pursuant to Title 65 P.S. § 66.4(a). If you file a petition for review with the Prothonotary of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, the petition for review must comply with Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 1511 et seq.

Failure to file a petition for review with the Prothonotary of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure will result in the attached Order becoming final and unappealable.

Please be advised that this Notice of Right to Appeal is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult an attorney regarding your legal rights including your right to appeal the attached Order or your right to file an application for rehearing or reconsideration.

---

FILED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 2011 JAN 14 PM 2:44 DEPARTMENT OF BANKING PA DEPT OF BANKING

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, BUREAU OF : Docket No.: 070017 (OSC) COMPLIANCE, INVESTIGATION AND : Docket No.: 070027 (OSC) LICENSING, : Docket No.: 070028 (OSC) : Docket No.: 070029 (OSC) v. : Docket No.: 070033 (OSC) : Docket No.: 070035 (OSC) NORTHSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, PAUL : FENELLE AND LEONARDO D'ELIA, : OWNERS, KEITH DOUGLAS BUCHANAN, : KIMBERLY FRIEDMAN, DUANE BEERS, : MICHAEL GILBERT AND JENIQUE : CHANG. :

FINAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER

Upon consideration of the pleadings, the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearings on this matter, the Proposed Report and Proposed Final Order dated December 22, 2009, issued by Hearing Officer Jackie Wiest Lutz, Esquire, the Briefs on Exceptions of NorthStar Mortgage, LLC, Paul Fenelle and Leonardo D'Elia, Duane Beers, and Michael Gilbert, and the reply brief filed by the Department of Banking through the Bureau of Compliance, Investigation and Licensing (the "Bureau"), and the record, the Adjudicator hereby finds in favor of the Bureau and against the Respondents for the reasons more fully set forth below.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

NorthStar Mortgage, LLC ("NorthStar") was licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking (the "Department") as a first mortgage broker under the Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and Consumer Equity Protection Act ("MBBCEPA"), 63 P.S. § 456.101 et seq.[1] As a result of an investigation conducted by the then Bureau of Compliance, separate Orders to Show Cause were issued against: NorthStar; its owners Paul Fenelle ("Fenelle") and Leonardo D'Elia ("D'Elia"); and employees Keith Douglas Buchanan ("Buchanan"), Kimberly Friedman ("Friedman"), Duane Beers ("Beers"), Michael Gilbert ("Gilbert"), and Jenique Chang ("Chang"). The Department filed the first Order to Show Cause on January 29, 2007 and the last on March 19, 2007.[2] The Orders to Show Cause against the Respondents shall be collectively referenced as the "Orders to Show Cause."

The Orders to Show Cause alleged that the respondents violated Sections 313(a)(5) and (14) of the MBBCEPA which gives the Department the authority to sanction licensees and their employees for engaging in dishonest, fraudulent, unethical or illegal practices or conduct in connection with the mortgage loan business, or negligence or incompetence in performing any act for which the licensee is required to hold a license under the act. See 63 P.S. § 456.313(a)(5) and (14).

On February 13, 2007, Victoria A. Reider, then Acting Secretary of Banking, designated Craig E. Herrold, then Director of the Bureau of Examinations of the Department, as the adjudicator in this matter in accordance with section 206 of the Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. § 66. On March 29, 2007, Craig E. Herrold as the adjudicator designated Jackie Wiest Lutz ("Hearing Officer") to act as the presiding officer for the Bureau in this matter in accordance with the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure ("GRAPP"). 1 Pa. Code § 35.185.

[1] Chapter 3 of the MBBCEPA was repealed and replaced effective November 4, 2008, by the Act of July 8, 2008, P.L. 796, No. 56, known as the Mortgage Licensing Act, 7 Pa. C.S. § 6101 et seq. The Department's authority to issue orders is now pursuant to the Mortgage Licensing Act; however, the penalties recommended by the Hearing Officer were based upon the MBBCEPA which was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct.

[2] Since the commencement of this action, the Department went through a reorganization wherein the Bureau of Compliance was merged with two other divisions and became the Bureau of Compliance, Investigation and Licensing.

On April 19, 2007, the Bureau filed a Motion to Consolidate the Orders to Show Cause under the NorthStar docket number. Respondents filed answers to their respective Orders to Show Cause from May 2, 2007, through May 18, 2007. On May 18, 2007, the Hearing Officer granted the Bureau's Motion to Consolidate.

On August 1, 2007, Steven Kaplan was appointed Acting Secretary of Banking and, on September 18, 2007, was confirmed as the Secretary of Banking by unanimous vote of the Senate. On December 7, 2007, Secretary Kaplan rescinded the appointment of Craig E. Herrold as the adjudicator pursuant to the Administrative Code. At that time, Secretary Kaplan assumed the role of the adjudicator for this matter (the "Adjudicator"). 71 P.S. § 66.

On November 6, 2007, the Bureau filed a Motion to Suspend License Pending Full Hearing on License Revocation and to Refuse to Renew requesting the Hearing Officer permit the Bureau to suspend and refuse to renew NorthStar's mortgage broker's license pending the outcome of a full hearing and final decision on the allegations in the Orders to Show Cause. On November 21, 2007, the Hearing Officer issued an order scheduling a hearing for January 4, 2008 on the Bureau's motion. The hearing was limited to the matters identified in Paragraph 23 of the motion that were alleged to have occurred in relation to several clients of NorthStar. The Hearing Officer conducted the hearing regarding the Department's Motion to Suspend and Refuse to Renew on January 4, 24 and 25 of 2008.

As part of the main case, on February 13, 2008, the Bureau filed an Amended Order to Show Cause against Buchanan and Gilbert which added more detail regarding the charges against them, while incorporating by reference most paragraphs contained in the original orders. Buchanan filed an answer on March 11, 2008, and Gilbert filed an answer on March 13, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the Hearing Officer issued a Proposed Report and Final Order regarding the issues addressed at the January 2008 hearing and recommended that the Bureau's requested relief be granted. NorthStar did not contest the findings contained in the Proposed Report and, on July 3, 2008, the Adjudicator signed a Final Order adopting the Hearing Officer's Proposed Report and Final Order. The Final Order suspended NorthStar's first mortgage broker license and corresponding branch office license and the Department was directed to refuse to renew NorthStar's license. No appeal was filed by NorthStar challenging the Final Order.

The full hearing on the Orders to Show Cause (the "Hearing") took place over eight days between April 17, 2008 and May 2, 2008. Prior to the Hearing, on April 9, 2008, counsel for NorthStar, Fenelle and D'Elia withdrew and on April 15, 2008, counsel for Buchanan withdrew. Respondent Gilbert was the only respondent to have counsel for the Hearing, but Gilbert's counsel appeared only on April 30, 2008. Respondents NorthStar, Fenelle, D'Elia and Beers were the only respondents to appear at the Hearing and they appeared pro se.[3] Respondents Buchanan, Friedman and Gilbert did not appear for the Hearing. Prior to the Hearing, Respondent Chang entered into a Consent Agreement and Order with the Bureau and the matter was resolved as to her.

On December 22, 2009, the Hearing Officer issued a Proposed Report and Final Order ("Proposed Report") which held sufficient evidence existed to prove that NorthStar, its owners Fenelle and D'Elia, and employees Buchanan, Friedman, Beers, and Gilbert committed negligent, dishonest, fraudulent and unethical practices or conduct in violation of the MBBCEPA, 63 P.S. § 456.313(a)(5) and § 456.313(a)(14). The Hearing Officer proposed that the Respondents should all be fined and prohibited from engaging in the first mortgage loan business.[4] 63 P.S. § 314.

[3] Fenelle and D'Elia appeared for the majority of the Hearing while Beers appeared for a single day.

[4] Prohibition of conduct under the MBBCEPA is limited to a prohibition from the first mortgage loan business. 63 P.S. § 314(b).

After the granting of extensions of time for Gilbert, D'Elia, Fenelle and Beers to file their briefs on exceptions, on February 18, 2010, Fenelle and D'Elia filed a jointly prepared Brief on Exceptions as individuals and a separate brief for NorthStar.[5] Counsel for Gilbert also filed a Brief on Exceptions on February 18, 2010, and on February 22, 2010, Beers filed his Brief on Exceptions. All of Respondents' briefs asserted that the Proposed Report contained both factual and legal errors. The Bureau filed a Brief in Reply to the Exceptions of NorthStar, Fenelle, D'Elia, Beers and Gilbert (collectively hereafter as "Respondents") on March 10, 2010, requesting that the Adjudicator uphold the findings and recommendations of the Proposed Report and reject Respondents' exceptions.

Also, on March 10, 2010, the Bureau filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Respondents' Exceptions. On March 16, 2010, Respondents D'Elia and Fenelle filed their own motion to strike portions of the Bureau's reply brief. The Bureau then filed another Motion to Strike essentially seeking to strike D'Elia and Fenelle's response on March 18, 2010. On March 19, 2010, Gilbert filed a response to the Bureau's original Motion to Strike. Contemporaneously with the issuance of this Final Determination and Order, the Adjudicator issued an order resolving these motions.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

After consideration of the pleadings, the testimony, the exhibits presented at the hearings on this matter, the Proposed Report, the Briefs on Exceptions filed by NorthStar, Fenelle and D'Elia, Beers, and Gilbert, and all matters of record, the Adjudicator adopts the following proposed findings of fact, which have been taken directly from the Proposed Report. The adopted Findings of Fact are found to be supported by credible testimony and evidence. To the

[5] NorthStar did not request an extension for the filing of its brief; however, since there have been no objections to the brief on grounds of it being untimely and no prejudice being found by its late filing, the brief shall be considered by the Adjudicator.

extent that the Adjudicator found certain proposed findings not supported, this is addressed at the end of this section.

(A) BACKGROUND:

1. At all times relevant to this proceeding, NorthStar Mortgage, L.L.C. ("Respondent NorthStar") was licensed by the Department as a first mortgage broker, holding license number 3419, with a principal place of business at 1236 Main Street, Hellertown, PA, and a branch office location at 1140 Lincoln Highway, Coatesville, PA, under mortgage broker license number 3419.001. (Official Notice - Department records; N.T. 01/25/08, p. 179)

2. A mortgage broker is a person who directly or indirectly negotiates or places mortgage loans for others in the primary market for consideration; in layman's terms, a mortgage broker is generally a licensed entity at the state level that provides services to consumers, primarily by taking applications and working on behalf of the consumer as an advocate and intermediary with a lending institution or a mortgage banker, to facilitate the transaction. (Official Notice - 63 P.S. §456.302; N.T. 01/04/08, pgs. 80, 85)

3. At all relevant and material times, Paul Fenelle ("Mr. Fenelle") and Leonardo D'Elia ("Mr. D'Elia") were each 50% equity owners of Respondent NorthStar. (N.T. 01/25/08, pgs. 176, 365)

4. At all relevant and material times, Respondent NorthStar had approximately 6-7 employees; as the licensed entity, Respondent NorthStar is/was responsible for the actions of its employees. (N.T. 01/25/08, p. 197; N.T. 01/28/08, p. 195)

5. At all relevant and material times, Keith Douglas Buchanan ("Buchanan") was employed by Respondent NorthStar as a loan officer; Buchanan joined the company in early 2002. (N.T. 01/25/08, p. 195)

6. Buchanan remained employed by Respondent NorthStar until November of 2006, when he began working for another licensed mortgage broker - Dominion Mortgage - without the knowledge of Respondent NorthStar. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 5)

7. At all relevant and material times, Kimberly Friedman ("Friedman") was employed by Respondent NorthStar as a loan processor; Friedman joined the company shortly after Buchanan, in 2002. (N.T. 01/25/08, p. 196)

8. The difference between a loan officer and a loan processor is that the loan officer is generally the person taking the information from the consumer for purposes of the loan; the processor then aids the loan officer by compiling the loan application and information and providing that in a package that can be sent to a lender. (N.T. 01/04/08, pgs. 157-158)

9. An "interviewer" is generally the person who takes the information from the consumer for a Uniform Residential Loan Application. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 66-69)

10. Friedman and Buchanan worked together as a team at Respondent NorthStar. (N.T. 01/25/08, pgs. 196, 225, 383)

11. At all relevant and material times, Duane Beers ("Beers") was employed by Respondent NorthStar in the capacity of a mortgage loan processor; Beers also worked as a loan originator for Respondent NorthStar. (N.T. 05/2/08, p. 224; Beers Answer, ¶6)[6]

12. Prior to his employment with Respondent NorthStar, Beers had no previous experience as a mortgage loan processor; Beers was trained by Mr. Fenelle. (N.T. 05/2/08, pgs. 225-226)

13. Michael Gilbert ("Gilbert") was employed by Respondent NorthStar as a loan originator from in or around late 2001 or early 2002 through November 2004 and, then again from in or around February of 2005 through to at least May 2, 2008. (N.T. 5/2/08, pgs. 199, 224)

14. Eric Kerchner ("Detective Kerchner") is a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney's Office; Detective Kerchner has held his position since 2001. (N.T. 04/24/08, p. 29)

15. Joseph Ferrari ("Ferrari") is a non-depository financial institution examiner for the Department. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 37-38)

16. A non-depository institution falls under the classification of, inter alia, mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 48)

17. Ferrari's responsibilities include examining records of institutions with respect to funded mortgages, denied and withdrawn mortgages and mortgages that close; corporations are examined every two

[6] The Orders to Show Cause that were filed against each named Respondent, together with their respective Answers, were admitted into evidence without objection on April 30, 2008 (04/30/2008 Transcript, pgs. 9-10) for purposes of the admissions contained therein. Under 1 Pa. Code §35.125(d)(2) these pleadings may appropriately be considered as evidence of fact.

years and more frequently if a consumer complaint is filed. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 39)

18. Brian Crossland ("Crossland") is currently the chief of compliance for the Department; prior to March of 2008, Cross was a senior investigator with the Department. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 49 and 04/17/08, p. 54)

19. As a senior investigator for the Department, Crossland was responsible for overseeing all aspects of investigations of institutions that were being investigated by the Department. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 54)

(B) INVESTIGATION:

(i) Kelly and David Nau

20. Crossland began an investigation regarding Respondent NorthStar in April of 2004 after learning that Buchanan pled guilty to one felony count of forgery regarding a loan transaction in which Buchanan was involved at Respondent NorthStar, regarding Kelly and David Nau; Buchanan pled guilty to forgery in 2003 as a result of having fabricated a gift letter in connection with the Nau loan transaction. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 51-55; 04/17/08, p. 55; 05/02/08, p. 205)

21. Crossland's investigation of Respondent NorthStar followed on the heals of an investigation that had been ongoing in the Pocono, PA region by the Monroe County District Attorney's Office as a result of a significant number of mortgage foreclosures and consumer complaints regarding mortgage brokers, builders and lenders. (N.T. 01/04/08, pgs. 45, 70)

22. Kerchner was hired as a subcontractor and special investigator with the Monroe County District Attorney's Office to investigate these complaints. (N.T. 01/04/08, pgs. 45, 70)

23. Kerchner's investigation resulted in the criminal charges that were brought against Buchanan and in Buchanan's ultimate plea of guilty to one felony count of forgery. (N.T. 01/04/08, pgs. 56-57)

24. Crossland, along with two Department investigators, first met with Messrs. Fenelle and D'Elia, as owners of Respondent NorthStar, and then began to review Respondent NorthStar's files. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 56-59)

25. During their meeting with Messrs. Fenelle and D'Elia, Crossland and Department investigators learned that Fenelle and D'Elia allowed Buchanan to remain in their employ and took no actions to closely

monitor or supervise his activities or to limit his duties despite their knowledge of Buchanan's forgery conviction in connection with the Nau loan transaction. (N.T. 01/25/08, pgs. 298-301, 303-304, 365-70, 394-395).

(ii) Sheila Walker/Leonard McClain

26. The first file that Crossland opened was the Sheila Walker/Leonard McClain file; in that file was a Borrower's Certification and Authorization that contained blue ink where the date should be; however, the rest of the document was a photocopy. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs 75-77, 90-91; PDB Exhibit 198 - Binder 2, Tab 38 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

27. In the same Walker/McClain file was another Borrower's Certification and Authorization that contained a signature for Mrs. Walker that had been taped over what appeared to be another signature for Mrs. Walker that had the name spelled incorrectly. The new signature had been cut out of another document in the file; the tape was still there. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 58-59, N.T. 04/17/08, pgs 75-77, 91; PDB Exhibit 199 - Binder 2, Tab 39 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

28. In the same Walker/McClain file was yet another Borrower's Certification and Authorization; this Borrower's Certification contained photocopied signatures of Sheila Walker and Leonard McClain and Social Security numbers, but, white-out appears on the document to hide photocopy lines; a drawn line is plainly taped on the document to make it appear as though the line extends across the entire page; and the date that appears next to Sheila Walker's photocopied signature is in original blue ink. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 75-77, 91-92; PDB Exhibit 200-Binder 2, Tab 40 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

29. In the same Walker/McClain file was a Mechanic's Lien Law & Indemnification form; on this form, Shelia Walker's signature is literally cut out of the document; the "cut out signature" appears to be the signature of Mrs. Walker that is taped onto the Borrower's Certification in PDB Exhibit 199. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 75-77 and 92; PDB Exhibit 201 - Binder 2, Tab 41; PDB Exhibit 1103)

30. Other documents found within the Walker/McClain file included an All-In-One Construction Contract, a Construction Option Sheet (Building Specs.), a photocopy of PDB Exhibit 200, i.e., the Borrower Certification & Authorization that contained white-out on the document to hide photocopy lines as well as a drawn line that is plainly taped on the document to make it appear as though the line extends across the entire page, and a Budget Line Item Draw Schedule containing what purports to be signatures of Sheila Walker and Leonard McClain. (N.T.

04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibits 203, 468, 200-1, 202 - Binder 2, Tabs 47-50, and PDB Exhibit 1103)

31. After finding the Walker/McClain file, Crossland and the two Department investigators proceeded to load boxes of NorthStar's files to take back to their office to review. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 62)

32. Approximately 20 loan files were contained within each box that was seized by the Department; the Department took approximately 400 files over a two-day period. (N.T. 01/25/08, p. 192)

33. As part of Crossland's investigation, Crossland reviewed each of the seized loan files and discovered irregularities with respect to, inter alia, signatures appearing on various loan documents contained within these files; follow-up investigation, including interviews with borrowers, in which signature samples were obtained, and examination of documents contained within various lender's files, led to the Department's filing of charges in this matter. (N.T. 01/25/08, p. 62; record, passim)

34. Specific to the Sheila Walker/Leonard McClain file, Crossland forwarded the documents containing the irregular, i.e., cut and paste, signatures (PDB Exhibits 198-201) to the State Police for a forensic Alteration/Obliteration Exam/Deciphermen Analysis and Integral Parts Matching. (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibits 198-201 - Binder 2, Tabs 38-41; PDB Exhibit 1103)

35. At all relevant and material times Trooper Sandra Miller ("Trooper Miller")[7] was a questioned documents examiner in the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab in Harrisburg, PA; Respondent NorthStar, through counsel, stipulated to Miller's qualifications as an expert in forensic document examination. (N.T. 01/25/08, pgs. 8-10, 4/29/08, pgs. 10-11)

36. Sergeant Gerhard Wendt ("Sergeant Wendt") is the supervisor of the questioned document section of the Harrisburg State Police Crime Laboratory where he has worked for over 12 years; Sergeant Wendt was qualified as an expert witness for purposes of his testimony. (04/29/2008, p. 11)

37. Questioned documents examination is an examination of a document that has any information on it that is visible, partially visible or invisible; documents are examined for a variety of reasons, including,

[7] Trooper Miller is now a corporal with the Pennsylvania State Police assigned to the patrol unit at Troop K Philadelphia station; she is now a patrol unit supervisor. (N.T. 4/29/08, pgs. 48-49)

handwriting comparisons, alterations, counterfeits, etc. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 273-274, 4/29/08, pgs. 10-11)

38. One of the premises of handwriting examination and identification is that no person can write the same way twice; thus, if an individual were to write his/her signature 100 times, a transparent overlay would never match up exactly and identically. (N.T. 1/25/08, p. 15, 4/29/08, pgs. 16-17)

39. Handwriting comparisons are based on three principles: (1) no person writes exactly the same way twice; (2) no two people write exactly alike; and, (3) each person writes within a certain variation. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 284-285, 4/29/08, pgs. 16-17.)

40. When a signature falls outside the range of variation it can mean that the signature was written by someone else to make it look pictorially like the individual that they are trying to simulate. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 284, 4/29/08, pgs. 16-17)

41. A forgery can occur in several forms: (1) freehand forgery, where an individual writes another person's name in their own normal handwriting; or, (2) simulation, where a person is attempting to make a signature appear as if it is someone else's, which amounts to drawing. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 287-288)

42. A person who commits freehand forgery is identifiable; however, it is nearly impossible to identify a person who commits simulation because the person is actually drawing and hiding their individual characteristics, leaving investigators with circumstantial evidence, i.e., a person had possession of a document. (N.T. 01/24/08, pgs. 288-289)

43. A common source signature is an original signature that is photocopied; signatures appearing on a photocopy are from one common source, which is the original signature. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 282)

44. A normal genuine signature is a signature of an individual that contains a range of variation; every writer writes with a certain range of variation, which is how someone can look at signatures in a checkbook and recognize a signature as their own. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 284)

45. An alteration can be the addition of information or the subtraction of information. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 290)

46. Obliteration is covering something up; hiding something so that one normally could not decipher what is being covered up. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 290)

47. Known standards are specimens collected from an individual, i.e., requesting an individual to sit down and write signatures. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 290-291)

48. Detach, assembly and copying is terminology that is most often used in relation to a document that has been cut apart, put back together again, or to pieces of a document that has been put back together onto another document to make up a new document. (N.T. 01/24/08, p. 291)

49. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the submitted documentation, Trooper Miller concluded in Lab Report No. H04-08215-2 dated January 5, 2005, that the signature of Sheila Walker appearing on PDB Exhibits 198 was "produced through a process of detachment, assembly and copying using PDB Exhibits 199-201. (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 1000 - Binder 2, Tab 37; PDB Exhibit 1103)

50. Crossland also forwarded the handwriting samples that he obtained from Sheila Walker and Leonard McClain along with the All-In-One Construction Contract, the Construction Option Sheet (Building Specs.), a photocopy of PDB Exhibit 200, and the Budget Line Item Draw Schedule found within this file to the State Police for a forensic analysis of the signatures appearing on these documents against the signature samples of Walker and McClain to determine if the purported signatures of Walker and McClain appearing on these documents were the normal genuine signatures of Walker and McClain. (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibits 203, 468, 200-1, 202, 470-a, 470-b, 469-a, 469-b - Binder 2, Tabs 43-50, and PDB Exhibit 1103)

51. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the submitted documentation, Trooper Miller concluded in Lab Report No. H05-02254-1 dated May 17, 2005 that the original signature from which the questioned signature of Sheila Walker appearing on the Borrowers Certification and Authorization (PDB Exhibit 200-1) was prepared was written by Walker; however as identified in Lab Report No. H04-08215, the signature was "produced through a process of detachment, assembly and copying using the other exhibits submitted for comparison and analysis relating to Lab Report No. H04-08215"; Trooper Miller further concluded that the remaining signatures appearing on the documents submitted for this analysis "are not the normal, genuine signatures of the . . writers, but simulations thereof." (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 1002 - Binder 2, Tab 42 and PDB Exhibit 1003)

52. Paul Fenelle was the loan originator for the Walker/McClain file. (N.T. 05/02/08, pgs. 202-203)

(C) ADDITIONAL CONSUMER FILES CONTAINING IRREGULAR SIGNATURES; WHITE-OUTS; PHOTOCOPIED AND "CUT AND PASTE" SIGNATURES

(i) Abigail Martinez

53. The Abigail Martinez file was one of the files that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland; upon his review of the documents contained within this file, Crossland noticed that the signatures of Abigail Martinez that appeared on the Servicing Disclosure Statement (PDB Exhibit 340), the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure (PDB Exhibit 341), the Appraisal Disclosure (PDB Exhibit 342), the Borrower's Certification & Authorization (PDB Exhibit 343), the Good Faith Estimate (PDB Exhibit 344), the Draw Procedures signature page (PDB Exhibit 345), a National City Mortgage Draw Schedule form (PDB Exhibit 347) and the signature page of Respondent NorthStar's loan application (PDB Exhibit 348), all appeared to be different in nature, as though, than although Abigail Martinez signed the documents. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77 and 88-89; PDB Exhibits 340-348 - Binder 2, Tabs 21-29 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

54. Because of the apparent irregular signatures appearing on these documents, Crossland obtained a handwriting sample from Abigail Martinez and then forwarded the handwriting samples along with the documents containing the irregular signatures (PDB Exhibits 340-348) to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77 and 87; PDB Exhibit 339 - Binder 2, Tab 20 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

55. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the submitted documentation, Trooper Miller concluded that the signatures of Abigail Martinez appearing on PDB Exhibits 340-348 as found within Respondent NorthStar's file, are not the normal, genuine signatures of Abigail Martinez, but, rather, simulations thereof. (N.T. 4/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 999 - Binder 2, Tab 19; PDB Exhibit 1103)

56. Respondent Paul Fenelle worked on and/or was responsible for the Abigail Martinez file; the Uniform Residential Loan Application for Abigail Martinez was authorized under signature of Respondent Paul Fenelle. (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 187-188; PDB Exhibit 530 - Misc. Binder, Tab 18)

(ii) Marilyn Meertins

57. The Marilyn Meertins file was one of the files that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland; upon his review of the documents contained within this file, Crossland noticed that the signature of Ms. Meertins that appears on the loan application that was taken by telephone by Doug BUCHANAN (PDB Exhibit 367) and a First Bank of Delaware Commitment (PDB Exhibit 368) was different from the other signatures of Ms. Meertins within the file in that "the rest of her last name isn't there. It just says M-E-E-R." (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, and 89; PDB Exhibit 1103)

58. Buchanan and Friedman worked on the Meertins loan transaction. (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 188-189; PDB Exhibits 492, 822, 877, 878, 883 and 889 - Misc. Binder -Tabs 19-23)

59. Crossland interviewed Ms. Meertins and presented her with a copy of PDB Exhibit 367; during this interview, Ms. Meertins provided Crossland with a copy of her Addendum to Construction Agreement (PDB Exhibit 366) that contained, what appeared to be, a signature that was identical to the "half" signature that appears on PDB Exhibits 367 and 368; Crossland suspected that the signature of Meertins appearing on PDB Exhibit 366 was used as a source document to photocopy Ms. Meertins' signature onto PDB Exhibits 367 and 368. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, 89; PDB Exhibits 366 and 367- Binder 2, Tabs 34 and 35 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

60. Because of the apparent irregular signatures appearing on these documents, Crossland forwarded the documents to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 89-90)

61. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of these documents, Trooper Miller concluded that the signatures appearing on the loan application (PDB Exhibit 367), the Addendum to construction Agreement (PDB Exhibit 366) and the First Bank of Delaware Commitment (PDB Exhibit 368) were produced from a common source signature. (N.T. 4/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 1004 - Binder 2, Tab 33; PDB Exhibit 1103)

(iii) Jerzy Barnat

62. The Jerzy Barnat file was one of the files that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibit 1103)

63. Paul Fenelle worked on the Barnat loan transaction. (PDB Exhibits 434 and 606 - Misc. Binder -Tabs 1 and 2)

64. As part of his investigation, Crossland collected signature samples from Jerzy Barnat. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 65; PDB Exhibit 206 - Binder 1, Tab 8)

65. Crossland compared the signature samples that were obtained from Mr. Barnat against documents that were contained within Respondent NorthStar's Barnat file. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 65-70)

66. Upon review and comparison of Mr. Barnat's signature samples with documents contained within Respondent NorthStar's file, Crossland noticed that a commitment letter for ABN AMRO (PDB Exhibit 207), another commitment letter (PDB Exhibit 207-1); and a budget line item draw schedule (PDB Exhibit 424) contained questionable signatures. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 65-67)

67. In furtherance of his investigation Crossland then reviewed documents that were contained within the lender's file (PDB Exhibits 423 and 425), against the documents that were found in Respondent NorthStar's file to determine if any of the documents that contained questionable signatures went from Respondent NorthStar to the lender, ABN AMRO; Crossland concluded that they did. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 67, 75-77; PDB Exhibit 1103)

68. Crossland then forwarded these documents to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibits 955 and 956- Binder 1, Tabs 7 and 10 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

69. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the signature sample's obtained from Mr. Barnat (PDB Exhibit 206) and the commitment letter contained within Respondent NorthStar's file (PDB Exhibit 207), Trooper Miller concluded that the purported signature of Mr. Barnat that appears on the commitment letter is not the normal, genuine signature of Mr. Barnat. (Stipulation, 04/29/08, pgs. 107-111; PDB Exhibit 955 - Binder 1, Tab 7)

70. Upon further examination and comparison of the commitment letter that was found in the lender's file (PDB Exhibit 423) and the toner-based copy of the commitment letter that was found in Respondent NorthStar's file (PDB Exhibit 207-1), Trooper Miller concluded that the commitment letter that was found in the lender's file (PDB Exhibit 423) was a "later generation, reduced-in-size, facsimile copy of' the commitment letter that was found in Respondent NorthStar's file (N.T. 4/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 207-1 and PDB Exhibit 1103).

71. Upon further examination and comparison of the handwriting samples obtained from Barnat against budget line item draw schedule found within Respondent NorthStar's file (PDB Exhibit 424) and the budget line item draw schedule appearing in the lender, ABN AMRO's file (PDB Exhibit 423), Trooper Miller concluded that "each of the exhibits is a later generation copy originating from a common source document." (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 957 - Binder 1, Tab 13 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

72. Trooper Miller also concluded that the purported signature of Barnat that appears on these documents (PDB Exhibits 423 and 424) is not the normal genuine signature of Barnat. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 957 - Binder 1, Tab 13 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

(iv) Charles Markovich

73. The Charles Markovich ("Markovich") file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibit 1103)

74. As part of Crossland's investigation, Crossland obtained the following documents from Respondent NorthStar's Markovich file: (a) Page 3 of 4 of a Uniform Residential Loan Application that contains the purported signature of Markovich and also a signature of Michael Gilbert as the Interviewer who prepared the application on behalf of Markovich by telephone (PDB Exhibit 84); (b) a Good Faith Estimate (PDB Exhibit 834); (c) an e-mail from DMC Capital.com to "Duane" at NorthStar-mort.com (PDB Exhibit 836); (d) a Fax Cover Sheet from Michael Gilbert (PDB Exhibit 835); and, (e) another Uniform Residential Loan Application, which lists Michael Gilbert as the Interviewer who interviewed Markovich by telephone and worked on his file (PDB Exhibit 832). (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibits 84, 832, 834 - Binder 4, Tabs 96, 104, 101-103, 1103; N.T. 04/30/08, pgs. 113-118)

75. Not adopted.

76. As part of Crossland's investigation, Crossland also obtained the following documents from the Dollar Mortgage Corporation file: (a) a facsimile copy of Page 3 of 4 of the Uniform Residential Loan Application with a fax header from NorthStar Mortgage (PDB Exhibit 402); (b) a Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement (PDB Exhibit 839); and, a Uniform Residential Loan application, which lists Michael Gilbert as the Interviewer on p. 3 of 4, and is signed by Michael Gilbert (PDB Exhibit 837). (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibit 1103; N.T. 04/30/08, p. 113-118)

77. Crossland then obtained signature samples from Charles Markovich, and forwarded Markovich's signature samples along with the documents obtained from Respondent NorthStar's file and the Dollar Mortgage Corporation file to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/30/08, p. 115; PDB Exhibit 83 - Binder 4, Tab 95)

78. Trooper Miller conducted the forensic analysis of the documents that were received from Crossland. (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 59)

79. Trooper Miller first compared the handwriting samples of Markovich to the purported signature of Markovich that appears on page 3 of 4 of the Uniform Residential Loan Application that was found in Respondent NorthStar's Markovich file (PDB Exhibit 84, Binder 4, Tab 96). (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 59-61)

80. Using a microscope, Trooper Miller noticed pen stops in the middle of the questioned signature and could readily see that the questioned signature was not freely and naturally prepared; in addition, Trooper Miller noticed an added loop appeared on the questioned signature, which was not consistent with any of the signature samples obtained from Markovich that were submitted for analysis. (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 62)

81. Trooper Miller's conclusion upon examination and comparison of the two signatures is that the questioned signature, e.g., (PDB Exhibit 84, Binder 4, Tab 96) is not the normal, genuine signature of Markovich. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 59-62; PDB Exhibit 996 - Binder 4, Tab 94)

82. Trooper Miller next compared the purported signature of Markovich that appears on page 3 of 4 of the Uniform Residential Loan Application that was found in Respondent NorthStar's Markovich file (PDB Exhibit 84, Binder 4, Tab 96) against what appears to be a photocopy of the purported signature of Markovich that was found on page 3 of 4 of the Uniform Residential Loan Application that was found in the Dollar Mortgage Corporation file (PDB Exhibit 402 - Binder 4, Tab 99) to determine if the documents were the same document. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 62-65)

83. Upon examination and analysis Trooper Miller concluded that PDB Exhibit 402, which contains a 62- toner-based signature and fax information of 1/16/2003 is a later generation copy of PDB Exhibit 84, with facsimile transmittal information added to it. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 63-66; PDB Exhibit 998 - Binder 4, Tab 97)

(v) Dwayne Daley

84. The Daley file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; PDB Exhibit 1103)

85. Dwayne Daley is self-employed and the owner of his own pest control company; Daley arranged through a builder, PPF Home Builders, for the construction of his home at 1717 Pine Ridge Drive in Bushkill, PA. (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 110-111)

86. Daley obtained the mortgage for his end loan through Respondent NorthStar. (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 111-115)

87. The following documents were contained within Respondent's NorthStar's file for Daley and inspected by Crossland: Truth in Lending Statement; Good Faith Estimate; Uniform Residential Loan Application; Borrower's Certification and Authorization; Appraisal Disclosure; Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure; Statement of Applicant Regarding Owner Occupancy of Property; Servicing Disclosure Statement; Fax cover sheet sent by Paul Fenelle. (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, and 97-98; PDB Exhibits 125-132 and 463, respectively -- Binder 3, Tabs 32-40 and Exhibit 1103)

88. Upon Crossland's review of these documents Crossland noticed that the signatures of Mr. Daley that appeared on the documents did not appear to be genuine signatures of Mr. Daley. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 97-98)

89. As part of his investigation, Crossland collected signature samples from Mr. Daley. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 97-98; PDB Exhibits 123 and 124 - Binder 3, Tabs 30-31)

90. Crossland also obtained the following documents from the lender's file, Countrywide, pertaining to Mr. Daley: Uniform Residential Loan Application; Servicing Disclosure Statement; Statement of Applicant Regarding Owner Occupancy of Property; Federal Equal Opportunity Act disclosure; Appraisal Disclosure; Borrower's Certification and Authorization; Truth in Lending Statement; and, Good Faith Estimate (04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 97-99; PDB Exhibits 760, and 763 - 769 - Binder 3, Tabs 760 - 769 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

91. From the file documents that were contained within the Countrywide file for Mr. Daley, Crossland was able to determine from the Uniform Residential Loan application (PDB Exhibit 760) that Paul Fenelle was the loan originator for this loan transaction; another document that was obtained by Crossland throughout his investigation, i.e., a fax

coversheet sent "to Sandy" signed "Paul" (PDB Exhibit 463 - Binder 3, Tab 40) confirms that Paul Fenelle worked on Mr. Daley's loan transaction. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 99; PDB Exhibits 760 and 463 - Binder 3, Tabs 40-41; N.T. 4/25/08, pgs. 178-179)

92. When shown a copy of the Servicing Disclosure Statement (PDB Exhibit 132) and the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure (PDB Exhibit 130) that was contained within Respondent NorthStar's file for Daley, Mr. Daley confirmed that the signatures that appear on these documents look like his signature; however, he does not recall ever seeing these documents before. (N.T. 04/25/08, p.113)

93. It is not unusual for someone to recognize their signature, even when it is not theirs, when the signature is drawn or traced or "cut and paste" because the signature is meant to look like the original. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 44-45, 145)

94. In such instances, it would not be remarkable that a consumer would recognize a signature as his own, but not recall signing a particular document. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 44-45)

95. When shown a copy of the Statement of Applicant Regarding Owner Occupancy of Property (PDB Exhibit 131), the Appraisal Disclosure (PDB Exhibit 129), the Borrower's Certification and Authorization (PDB Exhibit 128), the Uniform Residential Loan application (PDB Exhibit 127), the Good Faith Estimate (PDB Exhibit 126) and the Truth in Lending Statement (PDB Exhibit 125) that was contained within Respondent NorthStar's file for Daley, Daley did not recall ever seeing those documents and did not recognize the signatures appearing on those documents as his signatures. (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 113-114)

96. Consistent with Crossland's practice with respect to NorthStar's other loan files that appeared to Crossland to contain documentation with false signatures, Crossland forwarded Daley's signature samples along with the documents obtained from Respondent NorthStar's file to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/17/08, p.98)

97. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the submitted documentation, Trooper Miller concluded that the purported signatures appearing on PBD Exhibits 125 (Truth-in-Lending Statement), PDB Exhibit 126 (Good Faith Estimate), PDB Exhibit 127 (Uniform Residential Loan Application), PDB Exhibit 128 (Borrower's Certification and Authorization), PDB Exhibit 129 (Appraisal Disclosure), PDB Exhibit 131 (Statement of Application Regarding Owner Occupancy), and PDB

Exhibit 132 (Servicing Disclosure Statement) were not the normal genuine signatures of Dwayne Daley. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 94-98; PDB Exhibit 972 - Binder 3, Tab 29)

98. Trooper Miller identified numerous elements to support her conclusion that the signatures appearing on these documents were not, in fact, the genuine signatures of Mr. Daley, including the following:

• The last lower case "y" on questioned signatures curves down and to the left in an abrupt manner; conversely the "y" in Daley's signature samples (PDB Exhibits 123 and 124) curves down and to the right generally; when they do curve to the left, Mr. Daley puts a loop and an ending loop on his lower case "y." (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 97);

• Mr. Daley uses a period at the bottom of his initial and then Daley; a period does not appear in any of the questioned documents. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 97-98);

• Generally speaking, Mr. Daley writes in a connected style of writing; however, on the questioned documents, there is a disconnected style of writing. For example, in the questioned documents, the last name contains a "D" and then there is a pronounced break. (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 98)

(vi) Ronald Kinzinger

99. The Ronald Kinzinger ("Kinzinger") file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; N.T. 04/30/08, pgs.124-126; PDB Exhibit 1103)

100. In this file folder was a Uniform Residential Loan Application containing a purported original blue ink signature of Kinzinger as well as the signature of Michael Gilbert, who signed the form as "Interviewer." (N.T. 04/30/08, p. 124; PDB Exhibit 87)

101. The Uniform Residential Loan Application reveals that Michael Gilbert, as "Interviewer" obtained Kinzinger's information for the Uniform Residential Loan Application by telephone and worked on the Kinzinger file. (N.T. 04/30/08, p. 124)

102. Consistent with Crossland's procedure with respect to the NorthStar files that he reviewed, Crossland obtained signature samples from Kinzinger and then forwarded the signatures samples and the Uniform Residential Loan Application in question to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/30/08, p. 124; PDB Exhibit 86)

103. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of Kinzinger's signature samples obtained by Crossland and the original blue ink signature that appears on the Uniform Residential Loan Application that was obtained from Respondent NorthStar's Kinzinger file, Trooper Miller issued Lab Report No. H04-06895-1, dated November 5, 2004 and concluded that the questioned signature appearing on the Uniform Residential Loan Application is not the normal, genuine signature of Kinzinger but, rather, a simulation. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 50-58 and 107-110; PDB Exhibit 993 - Binder 2, Tab 1)

104. Upon examination and comparison of the signature specimens to the questioned signature, Trooper Miller observed that the baseline configuration and letter spacing and form of the questioned signature were not consistent with the signature specimens that were submitted; microscopically she was able to determine that the questioned signature was not freely and naturally prepared because there are pen stops and lifts in numerous locations on the questioned signature that are not consistent with the specimens. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 56-58)

105. Trooper Miller's conclusion is that someone tried to simulate Kinzinger's signature. (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 57)

(vii) Antoni Turski

106. The Antoni Turski ("Turski") file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, 96-97; PDB Exhibit 1103)

107. Respondent NorthStar's file on Turski contained the following documents: Request for Copy or Transcript of Tax Form; Appraisal Disclosure; Good Faith Estimate; Uniform Residential Loan Application - 1003; Letter To Whom it May Concern; and, Borrower Certification and Authorization. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, 96-97; PDB Exhibits 333-338 - Binder 2, Tabs 96-101 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

108. The signatures on the documents contained within Respondent NorthStar's file for Turski were all original signatures that were in black, purple or blue ink. (PDB Exhibits 333 through 338 - Binder 2, Tabs 96-101)

109. The Uniform Residential Loan Application contained within this file was completed; however, the signature block on the form for the interviewer's name and signature is blank. (PDB Exhibit 336 -- Binder 2, Tab 99)

110. As part of Crossland's investigation, Crossland interviewed Turski and learned through his interview that Turski worked with Paul Fenelle at Respondent NorthStar Mortgage. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 97)

111. File documents contained within Respondent NorthStar's Turski file corroborate Turski's information to Crossland; the file contains a fax coversheet from Paul to Ed, showing that Paul Fenelle worked on this file. In addition, Paul Fenelle testified that he was the loan originator for this file. (N. T. 04/02/2008, p. 202; PDB Exhibit 795 - Misc. Binder, Tab 38);

112. During Crossland's interview of Turski, Crossland showed Turski the Good Faith Estimate that was found in Respondent NorthStar's file for Turski, which contains a purported original blue ink signature of Turski, written in cursive style; Turski informed Crossland that it was not his signature. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 97)

113. Crossland then asked Turski to write his name in cursive; but, Turski did not know what cursive was. Crossland eventually obtained two signature specimens from Turski - one in print form and one in cursive - (PDB Exhibits 331 and 332) and forwarded the signature specimens, together with the previously identified documents found in Respondent NorthStar's file (PDB Exhibits 333-338) and forwarded these documents to the State Police for a forensic comparison analysis. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77 and 96-97; PDB Exhibits 333-338 -- Binder 2, Tabs 94-101 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

114. Upon completion of an examination and comparison of the submitted documentation, Trooper Miller concluded that the original signatures appearing on PDB Exhibits 333-338 were not the normal genuine signature of Turski. (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 101-107; PDB Exhibit 1013, Binder 2, Tab 93)

115. From the outset, Trooper Miller noticed individualized characteristics in Turski's signatures that do not appear on any of the questioned signatures. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 102)

116. Examples of inconsistencies that Trooper Miller noticed when she compared Turski's signature specimens with the signatures on the questioned documents include the following:

• In PDB Exhibit 334 (Appraisal Disclosure), the bottom staff of the upper case "T" that appears in Turski's last name was written first followed by a pen drag up to the left portion of the T crossing; that does not exist on Turski's signature specimens (N.T. 04/29/08, p. 102);

• In PDB Exhibit 334 (Appraisal Disclosure), the lower case "t" in "Antoni" contains a crossing of that "t" that looks almost like an ampersand; that does not exist on Turski's signature specimens (N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 102-103);

• In PDB Exhibit 335 (Good Faith Estimate), when the first "n" in "Antoni" was examined microscopically, Trooper Miller noticed a pen stop at the top of the n (indicating that somebody was trying to simulate Antoni's signature), and then a restart into the rest of the name; in this same exhibit, there is a very faint overwriting on the original right where the "t" goes into the "o." In addition, there is a pen drag that goes from the first half of the upper case T of his last name up into the T crossing; that does not appear anywhere in Turski's specimens submitted.(N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 104-106)

(viii) Clarence Nortey

117. The Clarence Nortey ("Nortey") file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77, 95; PDB Exhibit 1103)

118. The Nortey file contained the following documents: Notice to Applicant of Right to Receive Copy of Appraisal Report; Equal Credit Opportunity Act; The Housing Financial Discrimination Act of 1977 Fair Lending Notice; Disclosure Notices; Borrower Signature Authorization; Borrower's Certification and Authorization; Mortgage Loan Origination Agreement; and, page 2 of 2 of a Servicing Transfer Estimate. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 95; PDB Exhibits 228 - 235 - Binder 2, Tabs 81-88)

119. Upon Crossland's review of these documents, he noticed that each and every document appeared to contain the same photocopied signature of Nortey. (N.T. 04/17/08, p. 95; PDB Exhibits 228 - 235 - Binder 2, Tabs 81-88)

120. Crossland forwarded PDB Exhibits 228 - 235 to the State Police Forensics Laboratory for testing and subsequently received Lab Report H04-08212-1 dated December 29, 2004 from Trooper Miller, Document Examiner, which confirmed Crossland's suspicions; upon completion of an examination and comparison of the items submitted, Trooper Miller concluded that every document was produced from a common source signature. (N.T. 04/17/08, pgs. 55-56, 75-77; N.T. 04/29/08, pgs. 107-110; PDB Exhibit 1010 -- Binder 2, Tab 80 and PDB Exhibit 1103)

121. Also contained within Respondent NorthStar's Nortey file were the following documents indicating that Kimberly Friedman and Douglas Buchanan worked on this file: A Processor's memo from

Kimberly Friedman (PDB Exhibit 806); Documentation request and verification of fees containing Friedman's signature as "Broker" (PDB Exhibit 813); a Uniform Residential Loan Application containing Buchanan's signature as "interviewer" (PDB Exhibit 490); and, a Pre-qualifying submission sheet that lists "Kim" as contact (PDB Exhibit 491). (N.T. 04/25/08, pgs. 179-183; PDB Exhibits 806, 813, 490 and 491 - Misc. Binder, Tabs 32-35; and PDB Exhibit 1104).

(ix) Richard Cole and Aida Garcia-Cole

122. The Richard Cole and Aida Garcia-Cole ("Cole") file was another file that was seized by the Department from Respondent NorthStar and reviewed by Crossland. (N.T. 04/17/08