Thanks for that great explanation, dennisw.
But I’m still confused about this bill - it seems to me that what it was intended to do was accept as genuine and definitive the endorsements that existed on the documents at the time of the foreclosure, thus resolving the title issues and making it possible to proceed (foreclose, sell, or whatever).
So it doesn’t seem to me that Obama is doing anybody any favors in vetoing it. The bill received unanimous support from Congress because it was seen as something that would make the situation easier to resolve, but once again Obama is acting to make title something that is unclear and in fact, tenuous and uncertain, existing solely at the discretion of the government (which will ultimately become the owner of the houses).
I agree that the system may not have been good, but it seems to me that the bill was an attempt to simply stabilize things at a certain point and then move ahead.
Obama is merely doing what Marxists have done since forever - destroy capital.
I don’t really understand the unanimous passing of a bill that seems to make it easier for banks to commit fraud. Unless they know how eff’d up the whole mess is and this is the only way out.
From the article
” It would have required state and federal courts to accept documents of many different kinds that are notarized by people or computers in other states. The House passed the bill in April by “voice vote” and the Senate passed it unanimously Sept. 27.”
The big issue in this bill, as I understand it, is the forcing of states to accept notarizations from out of state where they can’t be verified. This bill was pushed through as cover for the “Robosigner” mess that is currently happening with the foreclosures.
Check out Denningers Market-Ticker - he’s all over it.
The big issue in this bill, as I understand it, is the forcing of states to accept notarizations from out of state where they can’t be verified. This bill was pushed through as cover for the “Robosigner” mess that is currently happening with the foreclosures.
Check out Denningers Market-Ticker - he’s all over it.
This all revolves around contract law.
If someone says you owe them money and you don't agree, they have to produce the contract upon your request. This must be the original contract that contains your signature that proves you agreed to the debt and its terms.
This whole 'electronic paperwork' mess tries to bypass this legal concept that is over 200 years old by having some notary somewhere say "Yeah, I saw the contract", thereby relieving the party that is supposedly owed from the burden OF ACTUALLY PRODUCING the contract.
It not only flips the 'he who asserts must also prove' concept on its head, it puts the person who is contesting the debt in the impossible position of trying to prove the opposite - that he DOESN'T owe it.
It was much simpler than that. The bill, H.R.3808, did nothing more than make notarized paperwork in one state valid for use in courts in other states:
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. Yes, this includes endorsements on foreclosure notices, but only if the notarizations were lawful. One of the major problems is that some banks were auto-signing the foreclosure notices, and then sending them to a notary for signature. Notary is supposed to be done in the presense of the signee, so this was an "unlawful" notary, and isn't effected by the bill (unless some state allows such notary).