Robosigning violated the notary laws, so this bill had nothing really to do with that. This bill allowed paperwork LEGALLY NOTARIZED (lawfully notarized) in one state to be used in courts in another state.
Obama vetoes because he hates business and wants his lefist buddies and voters to be able to stay in their homes they aren’t paying for for another month. Without this law, they can force the big banks to parcel out their foreclosure paperwork to all 50 states, so that they can sign the paperwork in the presense of a notary in the state they have to file in.
But even if this bill was signed, it wouldn’t make illegal notary papers legal. You’d still have to go back and get the signatures done in front of a notary (unless of course there is a state where it is actually LEGAL to get a notary signature without a phsyical presence — anybody know of such a state)?
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.”
How does this not endorse robosigning?
‘This bill allowed paperwork LEGALLY NOTARIZED (lawfully notarized) in one state to be used in courts in another state.”
Expanding federal powers is not a conservative cause.
It would eliminate the value of notarized documents since its virtually impossible to know whether the documents are notarized properly if it wasn’t done in your state.
that makes no sense, the law already allows for cross state notary recognition.
This was a bad bill.
Obama vetoed this because nobody paid him bribe money.