“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.
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.