I don't totally disagree with what you say-- O'Brien is certainly over the top a bit here.  Not every assembly-line signing on a recorded document rises to the level of a crime, and many of these documents that O'Brien is citing probably are legal.  And even to the extent that there are improperly executed documents, I agree that in the vast majority of cases, the failure of the borrower to make their mortgage payments is the primary cause of the foreclosure.  And while I have significant issues with MERS, I do not think it to be evil.

But there are legitimate issues with foreclosure process and the processes used to document foreclosures, and I think there is a "method to the madness" of a document vigilante like O'Brien.  Have you heard of the concept of the "Overton Window"?  The gist of the concept is that to gain acceptance for what is currently considered an extreme or radical view, a long term strategy to get that desired result is to argue for something even more radical than what you actually want.  The "window" of mainstream possibilities on the issue will tend to lie between the extreme views on the issue; so by arguing for something even more extreme than the extreme thing that you want, you make what you want seem less extreme.  If O'Brien were to argue that anybody who signed someone else's name on a recorded document should be locked up, for instance, that might make stiff civil penalties for instances of robo-signing seem more reasonable.

I have some problems with the Overton WIndow theory, but it does provide a rational basis for all the extreme political views we are hearing.