Read this, and then think about the Notary bill that just got the kibosh.
I’m sure it is all just a coincidence.
This post is in: Assholes
Read this, and then think about the Notary bill that just got the kibosh.
I’m sure it is all just a coincidence.
Comments are closed.
Zifnab
Nothing to see here.
Herp-de-derp.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Now the shit comes out and we see why the Senate and House quietly passed this bill. They were trying to help cover up this bullshit. Obama was right in his pocket veto.
Ok people, who are the ones looking out for us, the President or our representatives? Every single Democrat who may have let this pass needs to hear from us. They have hidden the names of the guilty by the way it was passed and therefore every single one of them were culpable in this act.
Nobody stood up and yelled STOP! It took our President to do so. Thank fucking goodness.
Ash Can
I’m sure the usual cadre of trolls will be along to insist that the real reason Obama vetoed that little fart of a bill is that he has an even more nefarious plan in mind.
Joseph Nobles
I was hoping for a gay marriage “unintended consequence.” They have to be notarized, don’t they?
This does all have the feel of “get as many homes foreclosed before the gig is up” to it. What’s Leahy’s state? I’d read that it was a last-minute burst of requests from his state that greased the last chutes.
danimal
It’s just paperwork, I don’t see what the big deal is if an office clerk signs a few papers to expedite the process….
/bankster
FormerSwingVoter
arehgtjr;thrt;hjjadfghklregreag
People need to go to jail for this.
slag
I’m way too lazy to read that. If the print were slightly darker, maybe.
FormerSwingVoter
@slag:
Short version: Law firm blatantly falsifies documents in order for banks to foreclose on people’s homes. And I do mean blatant. Forging signatures, notarizing things without witnesses or notaries, creating false background searches under other people’s social security numbers – anything you can think of, they did worse.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
Why am I completely unsurprised that this was going on in Fort Lauderdale? On the plus side, I might be able to buy a house in ten years when all this shakes out.
jbird
I’m just flabbergasted. Just when I think my shock-o-meter can’t be tripped it is.
General Stuck
Fraud is fraud, and if it is becoming a big problem in the foreclosure realm, it needs to be dealt with. The electronic section of the bill sure does seem fishy, as does the timing also too. But is beyond my expertise in the area, which is precisely zero. Good to veto.
And I read where Conyers said the last hearing on this was four months ago.
RSR
A real irony is the false prior claims about fraud in obtaining ‘sub-prime’ loans, when in reality, the bank just gave loans to people who wouldn’t be able to repay them. (not all sum-prime BTW; lots of prime loans are underwater/at risk now)
Meanwhile, it’s the banks who are actually committing fraud on the back side of the loan failures.
Overall, that’s got to be one of the most annoying aspects of the big picture: banks loaned money to high risks (gambled and lost) yet it’s the banks who are getting saved even as they commit fraud. Woo-hoo free market!
joe from Lowell
Holy crap.
“There were just stamps around?”
“Yeah.”
Un-be-fucking-lievable. Taking people’s homes.
Omnes Omnibus
That is seriously fucked up. Those documents, however, would not be properly notarized. The bill that Obama vetoed would not have made those documents be properly notarized. I am not sure the bill would have done anything to the foreclosure process, but I am, nevertheless, happy that he vetoed it since there would have been a huge outcry that he was in bed with the banks if he hadn’t vetoed it.
slag
@FormerSwingVoter: Wow. Thanks for that. Almost unbelievable.
4tehlulz
Obviously, this is the fault of the Community Reinvestment Act.
duck-billed placelot
I don’t know why you all are complaining about some hard-working Americans who figured out a way to make their jobs easier. That’s the American spirit, right there!
Oh, crap. It kind of is the American spirit now, isn’t it? “Fuck over as many people as you can till you get caught.” We’re Number One!
joe from Lowell
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
I doubt that, Odie. The more likely story is that the bill looked perfectly innocuous at first glance – recognize notaries from other states? Sure, that makes sense – and the they didn’t appreciate the implications.
@FormerSwingVoter:
Oh, yeah. This is going to put asses in jail.
@Brian S (formerly Incertus):
The Florida real estate industry is a snake pit from top to bottom.
MikeJ
11D chess to the rescue.
Mike B
They should just let The Free Market — peace be upon it — sort this all out. Anything else would be against the ten commandments and the constitution, and will lead us straight to socialist sharia serfdom.
I feel a chorus of “God Bless America” coming on…
Steve
@General Stuck:
The last hearing on this was four YEARS ago. This bill has been kicking around Congress for ages, and no one has tied it to anyone more sinister than the local court reporters’ association. But once the blogosphere gets going on one of these conspiracy theories you can’t stop the runaway train.
duck-billed placelot
@Steve: If it’s been kicking around for so long unsung, why did it pass now, in the time of the Nihilist Republicans? It’s hardly a conspiracy theory to note that the timing is…suspicious.
Zuzu
@Ash Can: Did he veto it, or just not sign it? My understanding is that there is no pocket veto while Congress is in session, so not signing has the same effect as signing.
Also, is lack of court recognition of out of state notaries that big a problem? I’ve never encountered an issue in 13 years of practice.
General Stuck
@Steve: Oh shit, I read that wrong then. Wow, that is unforgivable then to push this thing through with voice votes. jeebus. congresscritters, what we gonna do with em.
Steve
@duck-billed placelot: No, it’s not a conspiracy theory to wonder how this bill got pushed ahead of the 400 other bills sitting on the Senate’s plate. But many people insist they already know the answer and that this bill legalizes fraud and perjury and is the vanguard of the banksters’ campaign to steal all our homes. I don’t think it’s too much for people to at least stay fact-based when it comes to what the bill actually says.
Steve
@Zuzu: Congress is not in session. Pro forma sessions don’t count if Congress isn’t actually there with a quorum to do legislative business. But he returned the bill to the House just to be sure.
Dennis SGMM
None of this would have happened if Jimmy Carter hadn’t forced banks to sell homes to dark-skinned people.
Stillwater
I read the earlier threads and couldn’t figure out what the hell people were saying. Lots of Obots claiming the bill was innocuous. Lots of firebaggers claiming the bill served the banksters, and Big O wasn’t gonna really veto it. The issue all along has been, or so it seems, that the notes were never transferred to bond holders, so they have no legal standing to foreclose. They have to make up the data as they go. Here’s part of a letter Grayson sent to FSOC:
“So far, banks are claiming that the many forged documents uncovered by courts and attorneys represent a simple ‘technical problem’ with foreclosure processes. This is not true. What is happening is fraud to cover up fraud… The banks didn’t keep good records, and there is good reason to believe in many if not virtually all cases during this period, failed to transfer the notes, which is the borrower IOUs in accordance with the requirements of their own pooling and servicing agreements. As a result, the notes may be put out of eligibility for the trust under New York law, which governs these securitizations… As a result, loan servicers and trusts simply lack standing to foreclose. The remedy has been foreclosure fraud, including the widespread fabrication of documents.”
Zifnab
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Before we start flinging stones here, let’s find out who this guy is on the side of the deposition. And, more importantly, what his countertops are made out of.
John Bird
A bill in Congress pushed through quickly to help an industry at the expense of the public good?
THAT IS JUST CRAZY TALK YOU CRAZY 9/11 TRUTHER. GO BACK TO CRAZY TOWN WITH YO BUTTERFLY ASS.
Ailuridae
@joe from Lowell:
The Florida real estate industry is a snake pit from top to bottom.
This. It’s tough to imagine a more ass backwards and corrupt industry anywhere in America.
duck-billed placelot
@Steve: Aw, and I was just constructing a much more elaborate conspiracy theory involving daylight savings time and the goddess Luxshmi.
Also, wasn’t the vanguard of the banksters’ plans to steal our homes the ARM?
C
Roger Moore
@Zuzu:
The White House Blog said that they were sending it back to the House for reconsideration, which sure as hell sounds like a veto to me.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@joe from Lowell:
That may very well be the case (not knowing the ramifications of the bill) but then I have to ask why the President didn’t sign this innocuous bill. What made him decide that this was not something to be passed and why didn’t our reps see the same possibilities.
@Steve: “The last hearing on this was four YEARS ago.”
Oh, I see. This must make it a good bill, right? Just because the last hearing was four years ago? It’s been kicking around for years now? If they didn’t want it passed back then, then why are they passing it without much debate now? Why?
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, I prefer to ask pertinent questions and not absolutely trust those who tell us to trust them. I want to know why something happens the way it does. When there is no good reason then I start to suspect something is up. What that something might be I don’t know, but I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. This may or may not be something that was bad but with all of the criminality that has happened in recent years we should be asking questions and getting answers about the ‘why’ of this issue.
My ears and eyes are open and I am watching as this falls out. Some bad shit has happened and our reps are the ones that let it happen. I have good reasons to be suspicious of our leaders.
You should too.
BombIranForChrist
I’m pretty cynical, but are we really saying that Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, just sped through a bill to basically excuse people from all the fraud they are committing? I knew the Democrats were bad, but holy shit. Really? Obama would have probably signed this fucker if there hadn’t been a minor ruckus raised.
I mean, I do think that there is a significant percentage of Democratic / Republican behavior that is pure shill, but I think it’s a bigger percentage than even I considered possible.
Holden Pattern
If you actually DO read the deposition, you will see that in fact the banksters were fraudulently notarizing the fraudulent documents in-state, using physical notary stamps issued in accordance with state law. The bad bad unspecified but very bad things that might bad happen if this interstate bad notary bill passed bad would have had exactly ZERO effect on this criminal behavior.
Really, the chicken littling on this particular bill was just stupid. The only legitimate criticism is that it might have some unexpected or unintended consequences given the current environment. But close readers will notice that NOBODY has been able to identify those consequences with any specificity or show how the bill would make things worse.
Also, the very first version of this bill was actually submitted back in the real estate boom year of 1998. A prescient attempt to help the banksters commit this wholesale fraud, no?
Silver Owl
Can’t even say I’m surprised. Banksters commit fraud, wreck their businesses on purpose and congress goes out of their way to help them, hoping the dirty American peasants never notice.
Different rules for the rich folks these days. The senate does not even pretend otherwise.
General Stuck
Looky here, the rest of you balloon juice martyrs. This is some primo material for virtual self immolation. It has some colorful visuals and is spelled correctly, and the caps give it sanctimonious umph!. Well done Mr. Birrrd! Well done,
John Bird
Look, I want to point out something while we’re on the topic: I can’t believe that the Democrats went 180 on this bill and bad-mouthed it, as it is totally a good thing that is not a bad idea and it does not make them look crooked at all.
Likewise, we found the WMDs in Iraq, but Bush had to say we didn’t to appease the shrill media.
It’s a crying shame when virtuous people have to make themselves look bad over these idle Third Estate parasites and their cooked-up ‘news stories’.
Omnes Omnibus
@BombIranForChrist: No, we are not saying that at all.
RSR
@Zuzu:
re: Also, is lack of court recognition of out of state notaries that big a problem? I’ve never encountered an issue in 13 years of practice.
The only thing I can fathom is that challenging out of state notarization has become a default technical challenge in many instances without any real evidence of fraud.
The timing of this bill sucks, but the arguements against it aren’t really against notary. It’s about fraud.
Bank employees and/or notaries who commit fraud or other deceit in providing documentation to the courts should be prosecuted. Jail time should be mandatory for large value transaction fraud. i.e., you helped steal someone’s house?!? JAIL.
John Bird
@Holden Pattern: Hmm, I wonder why it was passed this year by voice vote. It’s almost like something happened between then and now that made it a priority for someone in Congress.
Holden Pattern
@RSR: Yes, this.
eemom
@Steve:
True that. I think I’d better sit this one out.
(Hard to imagine anything more innocuous than a court reporters’ association, eh? Gotta be a front.)
joe from Lowell
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Because some activists got wind of it, understood the implications, and raised holy hell. Thank God, too. The White House would have probably given it the same quick read as Congress and signed it.
Holden Pattern
@John Bird: A lot of stuff passes by voice vote. I’m not a fan of the practice, but it can be used both for noncontroversial bills and for ass-covering. It passed the House by voice vote the last two times as well, so your conspiracy theory seems a bit misplaced.
The information is all at govtrack.us if people want to look it up.
arguingwithsignposts
Obama rammed his belt and suspenders veto down their throats!
stuckinred
Notary Sojac!
Dennis SGMM
Speaking as someone who knows little to nothing about real estate law, it appears to me that for people willing to commit the kinds of fraud detailed in the linked article this bill’s becoming law – or not – means pretty much dick.
General Stuck
@John Bird:
LOLwut?
joe from Lowell
@BombIranForChrist:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m saying that the bill’s backers slipped something pretty scary through without anyone noticing that it was scary.
@RSR:
This bill would have made it more difficult for people having their homes foreclosed on to detect and challenge fraud. It also would have imported Florida’s foreclosure practices to the rest of the country. “Oh, let’s just outsource the paperwork to this company in Florida that specializes in this and can do it cheap.”
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
I’ve read wingnuts who claimed that. We really did find the WMDs in Iraq, but Bush was determined to be conciliatory with the Democrats and the media – because, really, he’s just not willing to take a tough line and stand up for himself – so he refused to push back against their efforts to hide the truth.
Seriously. I saw this claim from a few different sources.
John Bird
@Holden Pattern:
Where is my conspiracy theory? What is my conspiracy theory? I am really dying to know.
Are you seriously saying that Congressmen sneaking through pet bills to help shady business go down unnoticed is an unbelievable conspiracy? As you pointed out, it happens almost every damn day the fuckers are in session.
duck-billed placelot
Yes, widespread concerns about document fraud in foreclosure cases would probably not be at all affected by race-to-the-bottom style notarization rules. I mean, the notaries in Florida are just sitting idle now! They could be foreclosing thousands of homes if this bill had been signed into law!
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Well yea, I know wingnuts, or some of them were clinging to the found wmd meme, especially taken to Syria scheme.
I just wasn’t sure what Bird was saying, I guess accusing some of us, or at least me, like on another thread of believing the same, or something. related to this issue.
Holden Pattern
@joe from Lowell:
Really? How? What exactly is the mechanism?
And the banksters aren’t all aware of this now? They’re that stupid that they don’t already know how to make up documents and commit fraud in every state? If anything, it would be EASIER to peg probable fraud if you knew where that a certain shop was a fraud factory.
Look, the fraud here is criminal. Absolutely criminal. But I don’t see how this particular innocuous bill is going to make it worse. Maybe somehow it could, but I’ve really not seen a clear mechanism explained.
RSR
@Holden Pattern: “he banksters were fraudulently notarizing the fraudulent documents in-state, using physical notary stamps issued in accordance with state law. The bad bad unspecified but very bad things that might bad happen if this interstate bad notary bill passed bad would have had exactly ZERO effect on this criminal behavior.”
yup
In the long term, recognizing out of state notaries as valid really makes sense.
This is a timing issue. In more than one way. Why did it suddenly flow through on a voice vote after languishing for a decade?
But are we going to start questioning out of state marriages because we don’t know the celebrant who participated in the ceremony? “Father Bob? Never heard of him; I’m challenging that you two are legally married!”
I agree that holding up on signing the bill into law is the right action at this point.
Currently, institutions are abusing flaws in the accountability of the system. But it’s the institutions, not the system, that are acting unlawfully here. And prosecution is the recourse.
(hahaha, like I really believe any bank officers will really suffer; sorry. What should happen and what will happen are likely far apart.)
PS my mom is a notary, primarily for our small business selling cemetery memorials. It’s important to us and important for grieving families. Abusing it would be unethical and sacrilegious.
General Stuck
@Holden Pattern:
You and me both, but somehow for Mr. Bird, that equates to believing there was wmd in Iraq, at least as an analogy, or fucking something.
John Bird
@joe from Lowell:
Oh, yeah, just a couple of nuts.
Those are real, genuine, U.S. politicians! A Congressman and a Senator! They wouldn’t lie to us! What reason would they have?
Dungheap
@Holden Pattern:
I get what you’re saying, but its a whole lot easier to commit fraud without anybody knowing about it if you use a small stable of notaries in North Dakota for all your fraudulent documents instead of being required to have local notaries in every state in which you conduct business.
Holden Pattern
@John Bird: I’m saying that the bill PASSED BY VOICE VOTE IN THE LAST TWO CONGRESSES. So the theory that it’s suddenly important to pass by voice vote for some nefarious purpose is shaky at best.
Look, this whole discussion shows exactly how fucked up the entire system is. One simple bill which has been introduced four times since 1998 to make certain kinds of interstate commerce easier blows up into OMIGOD THE BANKSTERS THE BANKSTERS ARE COMING!!!!
And it’s because we don’t trust our legislators or the administration, because they’ve so roundly fucked us so many times before. It’s true that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. But not EVERYONE is out to get you, and not every new law is necessarily a shady attack on the rights of the individual (lots are, oh yes, lots are indeed). This way lies the sovereign citizen movement.
Cat
The implications are that you can outsource your notarization to another state electronically and thus raise the bar for proving fraud.
Some of the first clues that pointed to this wholesale documentation fabrication was because the document factories would occasionally make mistakes. This allowed the lawyers who are familiar with instate notary practices and could easily find out who the notary was, because they were instate, and when the notary’s stamp was issued.
Holden Pattern
@Dungheap:
Really? How so? If every document you notarize is by the same people over and over again, isn’t that a clue that maybe not everything is on the up and up? Or is it that the stable of notaries in one place will have a stronger code of omerta? Maybe they’ll be locked up in a basement, and their drivers licenses withheld?
Look, there are so many things to spin cycles on and be legitimately paranoid about, so very many things, that I think that this particular thing is just a waste of everyone’s energy.
eemom
@RSR:
This bill did not even say “recognize as valid.” It just used the ambiguous word “recognize” without defining it at all. If it was an evil plot, it was drafted by some piss-stupid evildoers, because it wouldn’t have done squat to make it easier to get away with fraudulent notarizations. All it would have done is spawn a bunch of useless litigation battles about WTF the stupid thing is supposed to mean.
Anyway it’s been vetoed, or pocketed, or belted and suspendered, or wtfever, and meanwhile the mortgage foreclosure mess is still a mess.
joe from Lowell
@Holden Pattern:
By requiring the investigation of actions in a different state, instead of in-state, by people challenging the validity of foreclosure documents, thus making it more difficult and expensive. I thought this was a sufficiently-obvious point – that investigating things that took place in other states was more difficult.
Different states have better or worse oversight of their real estate/legal industries. Take, for example, Florida. Once again, this seems to be a blindingly obvious point.
Yes, you seem particularly tenacious in clinging to that belief, to the point where you appear to be playing dumb. Were you, by any chance, one of the people who was insisting on the harmlessness of this bill yesterday? Because you write like someone working hard not to back off an argument that’s become untenable.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom:
For the sake of argument, let us say it was a bad bill or, at least, a bill drafted in such a way that it had unintended consequences. Alarms were sounded, red flags were raised, and the bill was vetoed. Why is everyone fighting?
Holden Pattern
@Cat:
No, you might be able to make it slightly harder to detect fraud (as your next paragraph notes), but you’re not raising any legal bar.
This is the first negative consequence that anyone has raised in this thread that actually ties to some ground reality. But I can’t imagine that it’s all that hard to figure this out for out-of-state notary practice or find out when a stamp was issued. Maybe back in the days when you had to give the new president 2 months to get to the capital it made sense, but long distance phone calls are dirt cheap, and it’s not that hard to learn what the actual practices are for this simple administrative task.
Certainly this could not be what was intended by a bill submitted 4 times since 1998 — supporting the fraudulent foreclosure mills running for the last year or so by making it somewhat harder to detect systemic fraud based on notary error.
joe from Lowell
@Holden Pattern:
Did you, by any chance, bother to read the link in the post?
Dr. Psycho
But of course, the occasional anomalies in real estate documents are solely the result of good-faith errors that slipped past honest brokers.
And if you belive that, I’ve got some land in Florida…..
Dungheap
@Holden Pattern:
Actually, if you have a central place for all notarizations of documents to take place the fact that the same notaries keep showing up would not be at all surprising and would be no reason to suspect fraud. And yes, I do think it would be much easier to get a group of people in one central location to engage in fraud than it would be to get 50 different groups of people in 50 different states to do so.
Second, if you want to prove a document was falsely notarized and the notary in question lives halfway across the country taking the deposition of the notary becomes a whole hell of a lot more expensive than if the notary is in state.
I’m not saying the bill was designed with some evil intent to enable fraud, but it does make committing fraud easier.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
yeah, that was kind of my point.
Holden Pattern
@joe from Lowell: Nope, I wasn’t here yesterday. I just think the paranoia about the evil banksters on this issue is stupid and misplaced (and I rarely think paranoia about banksters is either stupid or misplaced).
People accept the validity of documents from out of state all the time. ALL THE TIME. Some states recognize out of state notarizations for some things. Some states don’t. People sue other people out of state all the time, and do discovery all the time. There are many states out west where you are much much closer to an adjacent state than you are other places in your own state. This bill has been submitted four times since 1998, three times in the same form, and passed the House the exact same way all three of the most recent times.
If folks want to say “hey, there might be unintended consequences here given the circumstances” that totally makes sense to me, even if I don’t think they’re going to be big consequences. But there’s simply no way that the intended consequence of this thing is to support wholesale fraud.
joe from Lowell
@Holden Pattern:
See, this is what I’m talking about. You’re not this stupid. You know that an employee of a fraudulent document mill isn’t going to tell someone on the phone, “Oh, those things aren’t actually notarized legally. We just put signatures and stamps all over the place!” You know this, and are plainly, deliberately playing dumb.
Which brings us back to the question of what made it such a priority that the alll-but-shut-down Senate passed it by a voice vote this year. Gee, let’s think really hard, and see if we can come up with a reason why somebody with influence in Congress might work especially hard to make it harder to challenge fraudulent foreclosure documents?
Hey, I know!
duck-billed placelot
@Omnes Omnibus: “Why is everyone fighting?”
I know you’re not new here, but geez, are you new here?
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
because if you don’t realize this plot was hatched by evil men for evil purposes, and only bloggers riding to the rescue on a white stallion, or philly, (they are progressives, you know) saved the day and caused Obama to drat the foiling of his master plan for for for, whatever, and thus insincerely was forced to pull up his suspender veto at the last possible motherfucking second. If you don’t see this, you are a wmd lover, or finder, or something. And live in Obot fantasyland
I’m going to pet the dog and watch a movie, to get my mind right. Forgiveth me, an humble obot
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell: as noted above, the allegations in the link show an in-state problem. The bill would not have any effect on the behavior described. Moreover, the allegations, if true, indicate fraudulent behavior that would make the notarization of the documents invalid under virtually any state law. Finally, notaries simply verify that the person signing the document is who he says he is. The veracity of a notarized document is not greater than any other document. You just have more confidence that it was signed by the correct person.
Holden Pattern
@joe from Lowell:
Look, I was responding specifically to Cat saying that it was easy to find out what the notary practices in a given state are. Try reading in context.
And yes, I read the fucking link, fairly thoroughly. In fact, the link doesn’t support your claimed position. The notarizations were fraudulent, the documents were fraudulent, the whole thing was a lie from start to finish. Notaries don’t validate the content of documents, that’s not what they do.
The only point on this front that anyone has made here that has any grounding in reality as opposed to “banksters scary” is that it might be harder for an individual to challenge a notarization (not the underlying document, mind you, just the notarization) because if it happens far away, it might impose an additional cost on a defendant. I’ll buy that as a possibility, but the reality is that people deal with out-of-state documents ALL THE TIME for ALL KINDS OF TRANSACTIONS, and somehow the republic still stands.
Omnes Omnibus
@General Stuck: Alien is just starting on TCM.
joe from Lowell
@Holden Pattern:
Stop retreating into generalities. This was a specific bill that required the recognition of a specific class of documents, that were not being recognized before. There is a specific set of reasons why this particular class of documents is particularly problematic right now – reasons related to a fraudulent set of practices that have become frighteningly common and on which an extremely powerful set of interests have an astronomical amount of money riding.
Out-of-state reverends officiating marriages – is there anything remotely comparable to the problem identified in that deposition going on with out-of-state marriage certificates?
And it’s more difficult and expensive, and that additional difficulty and expense would be newly put upon people whose lives and finances are in such a condition that their homes are being foreclosed upon, so I don’t think “People sue each other out of state all the time” actually gets at the problem here.
…and never passed the Senate, until suddenly, in October 2010, the all-but-shut-down Senate gavels it through on a voice vote without opposition. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. You must be crazy.
The motivation of the people who submitted the bill in 1998 don’t necessary have to be the same as the motivations of those who actually pushed it through Congress in 2010.
eemom
one other thing for all you “OMG the banksters almost ATE us” folks, wrt the “bottom-dwelling” argument or whatever it’s called.
As anyone who has ever signed a sworn statement knows, notary procedure is actually pretty damn simple. There may be varieties in different state’s laws, but I really doubt there is any state where falsifying a notarization of a signature is anywhere close to even arguably legal, much less the kind of crazy shit described in the deposition transcript.
IOW, this is not comparable to a situation where all the evildoers flock to a state that has the most evildoer-friendly laws, because if notary laws got “friendly” enough to permit someone with a public commission to verify that they witnessed a signature without actually doing so, they would essentially be legalizing fraud, and fraud by a public servant to boot. AFAIK no state has hit that far bottom yet.
Dungheap
@Omnes Omnibus:
Many states required documents transferring an interest in real property (such as the assignment of mortgages) to be notarized to be valid. Hence, all the shenanigans. If notarizations were not required, these people probably not commit crimes.
Omnes Omnibus
@Dungheap: My point is that the crime is in the fraudulent nature of the documents, not the notarization. A perfectly notarized document with intentionally false information is still fraudulent, and the notary did nothing wrong.
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus: Now you tell me, when I don’t have a teevee no more. I have the collectors edition of Aliens, maybe I’ll put that on for a reality check. Gotta get the dvd for Alien also too.
joe from Lowell
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’ve answered this already – it’s an in-state problem that would have likely become a nation-wide problem if mortgage-holders were able to start outsourcing their documentation to mills in Florida. Look at what’s happened to the in-state problems of Delaware’s loophole-ridden corporate oversight laws when cross-state incorporation laws were passed. Look at the race-to-the-bottom the Republicans were trying to promote by “allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines.”
@Omnes Omnibus:
I get this argument from libertarians all the time. “Fraud is already illegal.” Which is totally irrelevant to the question of whether detection and enforcement of that fraud is being made more difficult.
I know what a notary is, thanks. Read the linked deposition, and then tell me that notary fraud isn’t an important link in this chain.
Omnes Omnibus
@General Stuck: Life is unfair, then you die.
joe from Lowell
“Fraud is already illegal.”
Yes, and we don’t want to make it easier to hide the evidence of fraud.
Capice? It’s not about whether fraud is being made legal; it’s about making it easier to break the law without getting caught.
joe from Lowell
@Omnes Omnibus: Tell me about it. First, they don’t pay the roustabouts equal shares with the rest of the crew, and then they get eaten by the alien.
joe from Lowell
@Holden Pattern:
So YOU don’t think, or pretend not to think, that notary fraud is useful for holders of titles with corrupted chains to gin up fraudulent documents in foreclosures. Well, it appears that the people actually in the industry do. In fact, to such an extent that they were willing to commit criminal acts for money.
Keep repeating the phrase “deal with out of state documents,” and maybe nobody will notice that you’re dodging the point. “The Republic still stands.” I’m not talking about the Republic – I’m talking about some guy who’s behind on his mortgage having to pay a lot more to a law firm in order to save his house.
joe from Lowell
And the fact that firebagger bloggers have a solid year of profound douchebaggery behind them doesn’t make them wrong on this.
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell: Fair enough. I doubt, however, that there would have been any appreciable increase in fraud or decrease in the ability to detect fraud had the bill been signed. In the meantime, depositions taken out of state be disallowed in cases because of issues with notarization. In any case, given the circumstances, I am happy that the bill was vetoed.
Steve
@joe from Lowell:
Every time someone compares this to a race to the bottom in insurance or credit card regulation it just reinforces that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Try to understand the words that I am putting on your computer screen. The vast majority of states already recognize out-of-state notaries!
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell:
With the kind of fraud going on here, the guy will probably get an award of attorney’s fees with his judgment.
John S.
@joe from Lowell:
Just because a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day doesn’t mean I’m gonna go put and by one and keep time by it.
The Pale Scot
“But close readers will notice that NOBODY has been able to identify those consequences with any specificity or show how the bill would make things worse”
This bill in and of itself probably does not have a large effect.
What it does do, is set the precedent for the feds to build on and legislate to the states what is and isn’t evidence in a state court. Really, you want to see this discussion get in front of a Robert’s led SCOTUS?
They’re not fighting over ownership. It’s not about stopping deadbeats from getting a freebie. They’re covering up the lack of a paper trail with fraud. Because if the title insurance on a 100,000 goes from 500 to 5000, that’s a 5% markup that’s paid at closing. and the down payment goes from 20,000 to 2500. That will depress the market. If 3rd party insurers won’t insure at all nobody is going to get involved in those kind of risks.
Without insurance it’s a gold based economy. Whana shut down China’s trade, just torpedo a couple of container ships heading for LA. Loyds will pull out lickisplit, a blockade isn’t necessary.
Cat
Man.
There is a near 100% chance if this bill had gone through one of the big foreclosure document factories would get a bent notary or two and they’d just start cranking documents out with zero actual notarization going on.
The reason they want bent notaries is for the economy of scale it allows. There are only so many hours in the day. If a notary actually had to be present at each signing and verify that person A signed the document they’d grind the factories to a halt.
To get around that bottle neck they’d need more notaries. Which cost money. This is all about filing the paperwork at the lowest cost possible.
I can see how people would be afraid that making electronic notarization and cross state notarization a federal issue and taking it out of the hands of the state. They are worried that one state is going to corner the market on foreclosure documents preparation which is going to attract the same bad actors like FL and then other states courts are going to refuse to accept the documents out of a states rights pissing match or out of concern for their own states citizens. Then this is going to turn into a huge drawn out multi-year multi-state court battle and everyone gets screwed.
The other reason you have bent notaries is because a normal person isn’t going to actually sign off on fraudulently prepared documents that could take someones house away. Even if its legal for them to do so. Most people have a thing called a conscious that prevents them from doing legal things that could hurt people.
Odie Hugh Manatee
When usury laws were dumped and credit cards could be offered nationwide, the credit card companies went to a couple of states whose laws were favorable to them and started shoveling out the credit.
We found out that this was not a very smart thing to do.
Now our congress wants to make notarized documents from any state legal in a court in another state.
Sure… nothing can go wrong with this!
Martin
@joe from Lowell:
It’s OT, but HCR is more my area.
Allowing health insurance policies to cross state lines isn’t a race to the bottom when you’ve just passed a federal law that regulates the minimal content of those policies.
Once again, the firebaggers set the narrative on this one. Once you have a federal standard, allowing insurers to cross state lines mainly has the effect of opening up competition in stagnant markets, and to undermine insurance restraints that states have imposed (such as restrictions on policies which cover birth control, abortion, etc. ), which is a beneficial move.
Steve
@The Pale Scot:
I cannot believe the lengths to which some of you will go to find a gigantic conspiracy in everything. Yes, yes, this thing has been kicking around Congress for 12 years as the opening salvo in an insidious long-term movement to federalize all the state rules of evidence. First they came for the notaries. Then they said every page had to be numbered in the lower right hand corner. Then they said a document isn’t legal unless it’s printed on soylent green, whatever that is. Uh huh…
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Please see comment #91.
@Cat:
I’ll say it again. The vast majority of states already recognize out-of-state notaries!
Cat
@Steve:
Maybe it will sink in the next time you say it. If a ‘vast majority’ do it that means a few don’t and the ones that do are FREE AT ANY TIME TO STOP DOING IT. They very well may stop doing it if they think a certain state is allowing a fraud to be committed on their citizens.
This bill makes it so no state can ever decide a certain notary or state’s notarys aren’t actually notarizing documents and d o something about said bad actors.
Steve
@Cat: So you think the reason everyone hasn’t set up fraudulent foreclosure mills in Florida is that states might respond by changing their laws to stop recognizing Florida notaries, but if a federal law passes, now they’re helpless? Oooookay. They’ve only been waiting for 12 years while this bill languishes in Congress to begin carrying out their evil plan!
Even under the evil evil evil federal bill, courts still wouldn’t be forced to accept documents that appear to be fraudulent. If Florida notaries become so goshdarned notorious that dozens of states would suddenly change their laws, I assure you the judges would pick up on the notoriety as well. The notion that this bill passes and all of a sudden judges are like “well, even though this deed appears to be written in crayon on a grocery bag, it’s notarized in Florida so I have no choice but to accept it” is profoundly silly.
The Pale Scot
@steve
I’m not saying it’s a BIG CONSPIRACY, SPOOKY SPOOKY, it’s an incremental move that seems logical to non-criminal actors. But sets up a legal talking point for more fed control of state court practices. The Glass-Steagal ACT etc just didn’t spring out Phil Graham’s head fully formed, it was the result 10 years of massive lobbying for various bank favors that framed the debate. Supply side economics was around for a long time before George senior called it “VooDoo Economics” it just wasn’t taken seriously by the Depression Generation. Think of it in terms of framing future legal debate.
The Pale Scot
@steve
I’m not saying it’s a BIG CONSPIRACY, SPOOKY SPOOKY, it’s an incremental move that seems logical to non-criminal actors. But sets up a legal talking point for more fed control of state court practices. The Glass-Steagal ACT etc just didn’t spring out Phil Graham’s head fully formed, it was the result 10 years of massive lobbying for various bank favors that framed the debate. Supply side economics was around for a long time before George senior called it “VooDoo Economics” it just wasn’t taken seriously by the Depression Generation. Think of it in terms of framing future legal debate.
Martin
@Cat: Right.
My parallel to the insurance regs is that if the feds are going to require that states accept policies from outside their borders and therefore outside their control, then the feds should provide a mandatory minimum standard that every state needs to meet.
I don’t see that this would be an onerous piece to add to any such legislation, plus it would come with the benefit that if a state was suffering from fraud committed in another state, they wouldn’t be limited by the willingness of the AG in the other state to act, they could also go to the feds. I’d think that in a scenario as we’re in right now, that would be very valuable. I assume they can already do this under interstate commerce, but putting it in the legislation certainly wouldn’t hurt.
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus: touche!, my friend:
Mark S.
Huh, Ezra interviewed Rep. Brad Miller and the congressman had this to say:
Miller says there is no chance Congress would bail out the banks again. This looks like a huge clusterfuck.
Karmakin
I haven’t really seen any proof that there’s any outright fraud here, even with the affidavit. Or let me clarify that.
This is really technical fraud, where steps are taken to make the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s easier. Still illegal, and for good reason. It’s because technical fraud makes actual fraud easier. (Or you can’t commit actual fraud without committing technical fraud).
When we see some cases where two companies are trying to claim a foreclosure and/or claim payments or things of that nature, then we’re looking at actual fraud. And we see it all the time in the debt collection markets. So I think we will eventually see it in terms of mortgages. Just not yet.
So why the bill? Because politicians, like many other people don’t like the idea that someone might get their house for free on a technicality. Fuck the bankers, I say, if they’re that careless. But most people aren’t as vindictive against the rich as I am.
The Republic of Stupidity
Strange, that…
This “Holden pattern” has been over at the Wonk Room at TP posting the same arguments…
eemom
someday I will learn not to waste my time trying to discuss things with people who want nothing more than to pontificate on subjects about which they know nothing and have zero interest in listening to anyone who does.
This hasn’t been that day. Maybe tomorrow.
scav
From @Stillwater:
I’m wondering if it isn’t this part that may have put the sudden fire under the senate’s belly late one night. The real problem may have nothing whatsoever to do with where one or however many of the individual home loans are kaput. It’s the stuff built out of the loans that may be more seriously banjaxed by the out of state stuff, the bad paperwork and the lack of clear title. I’m wondering if financial institutions are worrying about holding yet another bellyfull of vaporware,
Zuzu's Petals
Sorry John, I don’t get your point.
Currently courts accept notarizations executed in-state. Currently courts accept electronic notarizations executed in-state.
Current federal law (E-SIGN) requires that electronically notarized records for transactions – including mortgage documents – that occur in or affect interstate commerce satisfy any government requirement for notarization.
How do any of these prevent the scenario you present? Where’s the outrage?
How does HR 3808 require a court to accept a document that has not been legally notarized? How does it preclude someone from challenging a document on that basis that it was not legally notarized?
Zuzu's Petals
@Cat:
That’s completely wrong. HR 3808 specifically requires that the notarization be legally executed.
Cat
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Unless there is part of the bill I missed, which seems strange since I’ve always seen a one page bill, where does it state what “legally executed” means? In whose jurisdiction? The language of the bill seems to seem like “legally executed” means in the state that the notary is from.
If state A doesn’t think state B is sufficiently diligent about making sure its notaries “legally execute” their duty state A has what recourse?
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu:
Wow, I was wondering why folks were responding to comments I didn’t make, so I scroll up and … hey, there’s another Zuzu here!
Zuzu's Petals
@Cat:
Yeah, well your comment wasn’t quite that nuanced. You said the bill would prohibit a state from ever deciding a certain notary or state’s notaries “aren’t actually notarizing documents.” Which of course is a ridiculous statement.
It doesn’t matter if a court doesn’t think a state is dilligent about enforcing its notary laws. If the notarization doesn’t comply with those laws, the court need not recognize it.
By your reasoning, what recourse would a court have if it didn’t think it’s own state was “dilligent about making sure its notaries ‘legally execute’ their duty”?
Cat
@Steve:
Lets make this simple. I never said they’d been evilly waiting to get this bill passed. The people interested in operating evilly have been operating evilly the whole time. I’ve made no statement as to the motives to how or why the bill has been passed, solely as to what could happen if the billed is passed. So way to be an idiot.
So lawyer who needs a particular document thats only valid if notarized is just going to shrug and agree when state A won’t accept the document because its notarized by state B when he’s got a perfectly good federal law that says state A has to accept it. OOOOOK.
As to your second example, which is a crock of shit BTW. The ACTUAL scenario is they can’t find the note because its been lost or they never actually had the note so the lawyer pays $12.95 and out spits a legally executed affidavit that no human has ever reviewed saying the note has been lost.
The other example is the note was never properly passed between owners after every resale of the RMBS and the lawyer pays 19.95 to have a fictional paper trail created and notarized.
These scenarios happen now and very often.
Its impossible to find enough bad actors to do this efficiently on the scale that is needed given the foreclosure level we have now. This bill will allow the document factories ramp up output.
But keep thinking this bill won’t cause any additional harm.
Cat
@Zuzu’s Petals:
The court does nothing, the homeowner or their lawyers have to overcome a hurdle proving the document isn’t valid.
I’ve always been under the impression everything anyone said in court or in a legal document is treated as a fact and the judge weighs which facts are more believable. I’m sure the first time a judge says I won’t accept this document from this notary the lawyer trying to use the document is going to do everything in their power to use the document.
To reduce this hurdle the state can pass a law saying we don’t accept documents that have to be notarized if they were notarized by an out of state notary. This federal law says otherwise, lawsuits will ensue.
Zuzu's Petals
@Cat:
No court in any state has to recognize an improper notarization. It’s actually quite simple. Nothing in HR 3808 would change that.
Cat
@Zuzu’s Petals:
My speech patterns are odd and even odder when written down.
In FL and other places, it wasn’t actual notary’s notarizing documents. It was usually a non notary. Maybe the statement is still ridiculous.
meh.
Batocchio
Can someone finally go to jail? Granted, the list of people who should is very long. But it’d be refreshing if this time, for at least this scandal, it actually happened.
The Pale Scot
Everyone, watch tonight’s episode of the daily show.
Most Excellent coverage of the issue.
Cat
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Seriously, you are another one of those “Its already illegal” types.
Everyone was accepting the improperly notarized for the last few years. I bet they are still judges in FL who will accept documents from the notarys who are talked about in the orginal link. Or have you not read about the FL judges who have been caught presigning things before the hearings with the homeowner.
This bill makes it easier to get improperly notarized documents.
Batocchio
More:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/your-daily-grayson.html
Zuzu's Petals
@Cat:
Seriously, you are another one of those lalalala I can’t heeeaar you types.
Let me say again, there are existing state and federal laws requiring acceptance of electronic notarizations etc. But no court is required under any existing law to recognize an improper notarization. The fact that some did because they weren’t aware the notarizations weren’t improper doesn’t change that.
And there is nothing in this bill that would require a court to recognize an improper notarization, nor “make it easier to get improperly notarized documents.”
Repeating it doesn’t make it so.
Steve
@Cat: I’ll say it again. The vast majority of states already recognize out-of-state notaries!
Michael
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ah, but Grasshopper, in the hands of a proper Conservative judge, armed with that statute and twisting around the intent while channeling the underlying assumptions, wishes and innermost desires of the drafters, those notarized docs would indeed be valid and unassailable.
The line given would be: “Don’t like my opinion? Appeal it. That’s what the appellate courts are for.”
Morbo
@Holden Pattern:
Ha, you made me laugh. Good one.
jinxtigr
I love how it’s becoming, “once again our global banking system is at risk of collapsing completely and everything will be rocks and sticks and shit. There will be no stuff! So now we have to be allowed to first fuck up our own systems for handling title to people’s houses and do nothing to keep track of it, and then because we have no fucking idea who owns what, we need to be allowed to take people’s houses away randomly with no proof or documentation, or the world will end!”
Past a certain point, isn’t it just enabling ridiculous fucking criminals? If we actually depend on bankers and the financial system, but it means they can take anything they want and just make up the documentation as needed, maybe we’d be BETTER OFF with barter of sticks and coconuts.
It makes me understand the teabagger/Confederate mentality a lot better. “I don’t care if I starve as long as I can see YOU starve…”
Sasha
One Question: If Senator DeMint is holding up all legislation until after the election, how did this bill get through?
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“The bad bad unspecified but very bad things that might bad happen if this interstate bad notary bill passed bad would have had exactly ZERO effect on this criminal behavior.”
Except your foreclosure documents in CA or OR or WI could now be notarized by the described efficient, streamlined operations like those described in Ft. Lauderdale.
The potential returns to this type of fraud would go up an order of magnitude.
Zuzu's Petals
@Sasha:
This is one of 50+ bills the Senate had hoped to pass by unanimous consent before adjourning on September 30. It passed earlier on the day that Demint announced his intention to place a hold on all unanimous consent bills until after the election – September 27. Only bills that were cleared through his office could be voted on.
The rumor was that Demint has had a “standing hold” on all unanimous consent bills for the past two years. If true, it meant that his office had to approve each one, which evidently wasn’t that hard to get done.
Comrade Mary
@joe from Lowell:
I could accept that reasoning as a plausible explanation, except for the fact that there were TWO fast, sneaky voice-only votes. This leads me to think that Congress either knew this stunk to high heaven, or they believed it was innocuous, but thought that it would look bad, so they foolishly behaved as if it looked bad, making it look even worse.
ricky
@joe from Lowell:
Somehow this statementit lacks the zip of the “blind pig finding an acorn” to make it a literary replacement, but it does give firebaggers due credit for rare accuracy neocon columnists sorely lack.
Perry Como
BofA halts all foreclosures.
Nothing to see here you tin-foil hatted wackos!
Zuzu's Petals
@Comrade Mary:
You’d have a point if voice votes were unusual. They’re not, especially when the bill hasn’t been amended.
For instance, of the 372 House bills sitting in the Senate at the beginning of September, 182 had passed the House by voice vote.
Perry Como
*CALIFORNIA AG CALLS ON BANKS TO HALT FORECLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA
*AG BROWN SAYS IN TALKS WITH BOFA, ALLY, JPMORGAN, WELLS FARGO
*NEW MEXICO AG CALLS FOR SUSPENSION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
*PNC Financial Services Suspends Sale of Foreclosed Homes
Ya’ll are some tinfoil wearing kooks.