Posted on 10/08/2010 1:21:45 AM PDT by paudio
President Barack Obama plans to veto a bill whose opponents say would make it harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures.
The move marks the Obama administration's most direct intervention so far into a growing debacle tied to how banks foreclose on homes, and the first effective veto of Mr. Obama's presidency. The veto could make it more difficult for banks to complete paperwork and speed the foreclosure process, and could give homeowners more time to rework loans.
Several of the country's largest banks, including Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Ally Bank, have moved in recent weeks to halt thousands of foreclosures in 23 states amid revelations that the banking industry had used "robo-signers," people who sign hundreds of documents a day without reviewing their contents.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
You have to be able to have a point at which you can accept things as valid unless there is evidence to the contrary. If you can’t accept out of state notarizations as valid simply because they are out of state, where does that leave interstate commerce?
Every state has its own particular requirements for notaries and notarization, but that doesn’t make them illegal or illegitimate or fraudulent.
Cases of fraud must be investigated individually and an out of state notarization is no evidence of fraud in itself.
I suggest the instances of this happening is rare, but the Marxists (and the media) want everyone to believe it to be commonplace. That is the issue here. The main goal by them is to attack the concept of private property.
If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,Given that both houses essentially approved of this unanimously, I don't see how a veto matters. It just puts a hold on some foreclosures where all the paperwork was in order, but signed out of state. Which is what I think Obama wants, to hold off his voters from getting foreclosed on until after election.
...
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Although obviously this wasn't much of an issue for the democrats, who were happy to pass this, OR the conservative republicans in the house and senate, none of whom raised any objections.
“I don’t see how allowing lawful notary from one state to be used in courts in another state helps with the problems of the MERS system, which is that they have lost track of who owns what. You can’t get a lawful notary for a paper you don’t actually have in your possession.”
Because then a court in Florida would be required to accept any notarized document from New York. Regardless of and without any way to verify the authenticity of the document.
The banks are using their own notaries to forge these documents.
I think this bill has nothing to do with that.
This bill simply permits out of state notarizations to be accepted as valid on their face. The individual can still dispute the validity of the notarization, either out of state or in-state, if he believes fraud is involved and the paperwork has never actually been seen or examined.
After all, an in-state notarization is as much likely to be fraudulent as an out of state notarization.
Accepting out of state notarizations means that people can move ahead without the fear of being stopped by a technicality, depending on their state’s law. And if there is evidence of fraud or error, they still have a legitimate right to contest it, just as if it were an in-state document. And just as you did.
So, if the big banks are openly supporting BO, and if this bill was supposedly going to bail out these big banks who are working on socialism, why is Obama vetoing the bill?
Popular pressure during an election year?
So many people equate the federal government with omnipotence, I fear they may have a great deal of ignorance on their side. :-(
Do you seriously think everybody goes and verifies the authenticity of notarizations in their own states? Do you walk across to the courthouse every time you get a document?
A notary is a notary is a notary. While there are some variations in state laws, the fact that a document is notarized in New York should not make it invalid in Florida. And if you have any concerns, there are modern inventions such as telephones, faxes, e-mail, scanning, and on-line searching that eliminate that trip to the courthouse that you were presumably making in your home town to examine your local documents next door.
However, fraud is fraud is fraud, and this does not in any way legitimize fradulent documents.
The bill in question does nothing to make such practices legal. It explicitly states that the underlying notary must be a lawful one in order to be accepted in other states.
The law, as someone else kindly posted, simply says that one a document is legally notarized, it can be used in all courts. It is a simple application of why the commerce clause exists, to keep states from erecting barriers to companies in other states from operating in their states. A company who has to get paperwork notarized (in person) in multiple states will be held at a disadvantage to a company based in the individual states.
Most of the time, apparently, notaries from other states have been allowed. When I did my last mortgage refinance, I signed with a notary in Virginia, and the paperwork was filed in another state.
But when a challenge is made, it slows down the process, clogs the courts, and makes it more expensive. That is why clerks of the courts were pushing for this bill back in 2006 — way before the current mortgage crisis.
“Now we’re even...”
Nope, we already have laws on the books to put these criminals in jail.
There are no laws for debtors prison. But I think you’d find a lot of bankers in jail if it did exist. Bankers are the worst ones for paying their bills on time.
I’ve seen first hand a major global bank which failed to pay a vendor $50k for 4 years. Not because the vendor failed to deliver. Because the bank was in an inter-departmental squabble over which budget the money should come out of.
When the bank had to have that vendors support again, they suddenly found the money. yeah I’d love to see those guys in debtors prison.
“If you can’t accept out of state notarizations as valid simply because they are out of state, where does that leave interstate commerce?’
The question is who wrote this bill. We know Congress didn’t. Most likely it was a lawyer with ties to one of these big banks.
So who would benefit from this bill? The criminals that led us into this mess.
I agree out of state notarization isn’t evidence of fraud. It certainly makes it easier for the banks to get away with it though.
As I explained in another post, the President returns a veto to the originating body, which is in this case the house, because this was a house-originate bill. Since the house is not in session, he can’t return the bill; if it isn’t signed in 10 days, it is considered “vetoed”, since if he DID veto it, he’d have no formal way of communicating that to the House.
If the house was in session, the president would be required to formally veto and report that veto to the house within 10 days.
‘So, if the big banks are openly supporting BO, and if this bill was supposedly going to bail out these big banks who are working on socialism, why is Obama vetoing the bill? “
The big banks and BO seem to have had a falling out. Perhaps they stopped paying their protection money.
For me the real question is how did this bill get to BO in the first place.
It is usually bad business practice to let one's receivables get that old before taking some sort of action to collect. But we were talking about loans and payments before...
LOL! That's what the law is....technicalities.
Why is it corporations can do as they wish and ignore technicalities while the individual person continues to be on the losing end of one?
Prima facia evidence my be valid on its face, but prosecuting someone without their ability to face their witness in a legal proceeding is a violation of basic Law.
It shouldn't matter if its the government doing the prosecuting or a corporation doing it, because the state is aiding and abetting the action, when they should be REQUIRING the contractual evidence before the case can even proceed.
THAT would be protecting the rights of the citizens under the authority they were delegated, IMHO.
You are quoting someone’s interpretation of the law. If you look at the actual law, it allows electronic signatures if they are properly notarized. Which still means originally signed in the presence of a notary, even if that signature is then communicated electronically.
Yes, this does all get into the whole “valid electronic signature” issue, which frankly I hadn’t concerned myself with because that is an argument far wider than just the mortgage security issue.
But this bill isn’t creating electronic signatures, it is creating a right of notary within a state to apply to other states. That notary is already covered by electronic signature laws, so this law includes both physical and electronic signatures.
The federal government is clearly given the power to regulate interstate commerce. The filing of paperwork in regards to an interstate mortgage transaction is clearly an act of interstate commerce.
So this does not “expand federal powers”. And there is no hard-and-fast rule that says “laws are against the conservative cause”. It could well be a conservative cause to protect the rights of a business to efficiently do their paperwork within the state they are headquartered, rather than a state forcing them to send people to the state to do the paperwork.
I didn't realize that. Did Obama actually send it back to the House?
Given that both houses essentially approved of this unanimously, I don't see how a veto matters.
I've been wondering if that's what this is all about: since it was passed on a voice vote with no objections in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate, then Obama is afraid that a regular veto would be overridden.
When Bush tried this in 2007, Pelosi said that they would treat it as a veto that could be overridden. But the House ultimately passed a nearly identical bill that addresses Bush's objections.
No we were talking about crooked banks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.