Posted on 10/08/2010 1:21:45 AM PDT by paudio
Maybe the law does ALLOW it. This law REQUIRES it. This is in response to a request from clerks of court because they were running into problems with out-of-state notary sometimes not being accepted, clogging up the courts for no clear purpose. This law was first introduced in 2006.
“THAT would be protecting the rights of the citizens under the authority they were delegated, IMHO. ‘
That sounds almost conservative. Everyone on here seems to think we should let companies do whatever they want regardless of any technicalities.
If I were you, I’d swear off banks altogether. Pay cash for everything, don’t borrow money, no credit cards. There is no law that says you have to use their services.
It can be done. Greenbacks are legal tender for all debts, public and private.
“The filing of paperwork in regards to an interstate mortgage transaction is clearly an act of interstate commerce.”
But is it an interstate mortgage transaction? Seems to me a state should have the ability to determine what its notary laws are.
Thank you for this post.
This law is not specific to foreclosures. It covers all notarizations, and all court cases involving interstate commerce.
And yes, at the moment, virtually every congressperson believes that it would be terrible for a state to refuse to recognize the legally, lawfully notarized paperwork from another state. That’s why they passed the law unanimously.
My mortgage company doesn’t reside in my state. I don’t know why they should have to come to my state and sign papers in front of a notary within my state; the notary just says the person’s signature is really their signature — why do I need an in-state notary to attest to that?
Just because there are INVALID notary signatures doesn’t mean valid ones shouldn’t be accepted. And requiring in-state signatures doesn’t solve the problem of illegal, invalid notaries — obviously ALL of those invalid notary signatures happened in a state somewhere.
This law is a reasonable law for an era where a lot of interstate commerce involves legal filings which need verified signatures. The problem of illegally signed items is a separate issue, and should be dealt with on it’s own merits, not by vetoing a reasonable and trivial law meant to simplify the verification of signatures.
Notaries are verifying that a signature was from the person whose name is shown.
Yes, it is probably slightly harder for a florida court to verify a notary in another state did their job. But only barely. Courts would have a hard time in any case, in or out of state, verifying that the notary did their job.
The entire point of notary is that they are trusted to verify signatures. That is true in every state, and if we start questioning that simply because we cross state lines, it would make things a lot worse, and not just for mortgages.
I still think a court in Florida could take action to verify the authenticity of a document, whether the notary who validated the signature lived within the state or not.
A document isn’t authentic simply because the person who signed it is known to be the person whose signature is on the document.
I don’t want to see foreclosures stopped. It hurts banks that did everything right.
When you have banks stopping their own foreclosures because of problems with the paperwork. My radar is on full alert.
That is illegal, and would still be illegal under this bill. And I'm still not sure why verifying a signature helps forge a document. I can forge a document, take it to a notary, and get them to stamp the signature as mine.
But Obama isn't up for election -- members of congress are. And they all voted FOR the bill (or in the case of the house, held an unrecorded voice vote which essentially means all of them can be held responsible).
If Obama was vetoing because it's an election year, it would be to protect his democratic house and senate members. But if they thought the bill would hurt them, they would have voted against it, not for it.
So again I ask, why would Obama veto the bill?
True, but not define it.
The commerce clause was intended to allow the federal government to determine which ports in the states were to receive foreign goods so that everyone got an equal share of the 'income' from taxes.
It could also be used as a tool of punishment. Any state in no compliance would have foreign traffic directed away from their ports, and force them to lose revenue.
It was never intended to operate on the sovereign soil of the States.
-----
But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
The federal government has no legitimate authority to 'regulate' the banking system.
It was posted above. It is a trivial bill. I could have written this bill. Congress people, even the really stupid ones, could have easily read this bill.
The bill was written in 2006 originally. So are you saying that the banks in trouble now somehow knew in 2006 that they would be in trouble, and pre-emptively wrote this bill and gave it to a congressman, where it languished for 4 years?
On aother note, I understand that the concern is with the expansion of electronic signatures. AN interesting quote though from a consumer advocate lawyer makes the point I think I'm trying to make: "Ira Rheingold, director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, told HuffPost he wasn’t sure he agreed the bill was so problematic. “Just because you get a lawful notarization of a bunch of lies doesn’t change your ability to challenge an affidavit as a bunch of lies.”
I actually dislike the whole new world of electronic filings and signatures. Sometimes it's helpful and efficient, but I'm an old guy who likes paper.
Because they thought no one would notice or misjudged the optics on it.
“I’d swear off banks altogether’
Already done that, I prefer to deal with honest people.
The white house announcement on this promises indirectly that there will be a bill, but it will be enormously complex, screw over businesses, pay off his constituency, and make our economy worse.
“As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.”
Given that the “wall street reform” just screwed over business without helping consumers, why would anybody trust that they will do any better “fixing” this trivial bill? Why not go after the real problem of mortgage securities, rather than mess up a simple bill that streamlines interstate commerce?
‘So are you saying that the banks in trouble now somehow knew in 2006 that they would be in trouble”
According to the dozens of small bank CEOs and investment bankers I’ve spoken with they knew this was coming. Many allowed greed to overcome their decision making. Some did not.
current with whom?
if a servicing bank does not have standing to forclose then there is no standing to give a pay off.
He can’t send it back to the house, because the house is not in session — there is nobody there to send it back to. Hence, the “pocket veto”.
I could see a paragraph added to the bill that would alleviate the concerns raised by posters here, without messing up the bill. But I’m certain the white house wants something much more dark and ominous.
Thanks for the explanation on what pocket veto is.
I’m not sure I understand your question. My contention is that if a borrower pays back his loan to whoever he borrowed the money from, within the terms of the contract, then almost all problems are prevented.
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.