I don't see anything wrong with the Notarization Act

[Raven]

First, a few facts as I understand them:

The role of a Notary Public (I was one) is to attest that the person signing the document in their presence is the person they say they are. A Notary should never attest to a document that has been signed out of his/her presence and a Notary should always check ID.

A Notary is not required to attest to the truth of the document.

A document notarized out of state must carry the official seal of the Notary.

In an Affidavit, the person signing it attests to its truth, the Notary simply attests to the fact that the person signed the Affidavit in their presence.

I don't see anything in this Bill that changes those facts.

Tell me what I've missed.

[depakid]

1. Here's one thing you might have missed:

Brunner seeks probe of notaries

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/10/01/brunner-seeks-probe-of-notaries.html?sid=101

[Raven]

5. I saw that but I don't think the Bill lets a Notary off the hook if

they have attested that they witnessed a signature that they didn't witness. Loan company employees who signed Affidavits that they reviewed loan files that they didn't review wouldn't be off the hook either.

[depakid]

7. What it does is bring the standard down to the lowest level

and also makes it much more difficult to defend against a fraudulent or unlawful foreclosure.

[COLGATE4]

11. Why?

[depakid]

12. Same reason why South Dakota and Delawares lack of usury laws hinders other states

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. They would absolutely be off the hook, that's what this is intended to do

All these thousands of foreclosure documents in the scandal that came to light last week... the notaries were nowhere near the signers, and the signers admitted never reviewing the files, and one robosigner does @8,000 forgeries per month. And there are hundreds of robosigners. We're talking about a massive mountain of forgery just now uncovered, and this legalizes it. "Systemic" Jennifer Brunner (OH Sec of State) called it, and it is.

The past fraudsters are off the hook, and free to do more of it in the future.

[nenagh]

2. The Reuter's article indicates...

"The law specifically includes "electronic" notarizations stamped en masse by computers"

so apparently there is not a person signing a document..

but that is just my interpretion... I am not a Notary Public..

[Tatiana]

6. This is the problem that the Jennifer Brunner has with the law. n/t

[InkAddict]

3. What notaries are supposed to do and what they do do is sometimes

not the same thing, not that it matters sometimes...Ask around and one will find "cooperative" notaries, not LOL.

[InkAddict]

4. Dupe, sorry

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. The foreclosure notarizations NOW are all fraudulent - this would make that all ok

These FALSE documents in the current scandal this week all have notary seals on them... and the huge scandal is that they are OBVIOUS FRAUDS. This act will mean that courts MUST accept an obvious fraud as legitimate anyway, and it will be enforceable instead of a crime. Fraud is legal now, if this is signed. All the seal will mean is "this crook is immune".

And that's not a problem? "Notarized" will be meaningless. Except that is, to legitimize obvious forgeries. (Isn't that convenient timing for the banks, which just got caught in a massive forgery scandal this week? Must be a coincidence.)

Yeah, that's fine. Consider car title transfers, IDs for illegal aliens and terrorists, false affidavits in court cases... criminals great and small will LOVE this.

Especially the global ones.

Yeah, it's no big deal. Whatever, lets just give the thieves everything we have left now, and get it over with.

[COLGATE4]

10. Raven is correct. If the notarizations are, as you say, fraudulent

then they can be challenged in court just as a paper and ink notarization is now. There may be many legal issues with the handling of the mortgage documents, which will get sorted out over time. But to insist that e-notarization is somehow equivalent to fraud is just plain incorrect and highly misleading.