Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk

[villager]

Source: Reuters

Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk

By Scot J. Paltrow

(Reuters) - A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

The White House said it is reviewing the legislation.

"It is troubling to me and curious that it passed so quietly," Thomas Cox, a Maine lawyer representing homeowners contesting foreclosures, told Reuters in an interview.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006?pageNumber=1

[Waiting For Everyman]

1. Ok, this need serious and huge attention and pushback

This will retroactively legalize massive bank forgeries on foreclosure documents in thousands of foreclosures. This document scandal is the first PROOF we've had of systemic crime in the mortgage crisis, and this bill is an overt whitewash. Legalizing crime after-the-fact! Is that not a big deal? Is that ho-hum?

Wake up people. This needs the biggest action ever launched on DU.

AND GUESS WHO DID THIS? (DEM)(PATRICK LEAHY. I am spitting furious now.

page 2 of the article, quote:
Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one (version of this bill) passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate (as previous others, to die in committee). But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.

These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.


(parentheses mine)

[Newsjock]

8. I guess this is why our Democrats in the Senate have been keeping their powder dry

You never know when you'll be called upon to stick your neck out for your "constituents"!

[bobburgster]

266. Thank god you have a President who cares about his real constituents!

He refused to sign it.!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39556377/ns/business-real_estate/

[davidwparker]

186. it's now on the HuffPo front page. GOOD. n/t

[roguevalley]

274. If he signs it, how is he different from anyone else who lives ten

feet up corporate America's ass? There will be NO DEFENSE for this.

[roguevalley]

281. Huffingtonpost says he's not signing it. Thank you God, what a

horrible bill. Way to go, Obama!

[jtuck004]

2. Kick and Rec n/t

[IScreamSundays]

3. Scandalous!

[Divine Discontent]

195. or is just simply more of the same? His actions will speak volumes to me and millions watching....

[bobburgster]

268. I hope you're watching his actions.....

AND take the time to comment positively about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39556377/ns/business-real_estate/

[Divine Discontent]

283. yep. and in its finality once it's over, His actions will speak volumes. I'm pleased so far.

[grasswire]

4. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Will the evil never end??

This makes me sick.

[grasswire]

9. I thought Leahy was one of us. Guess not.

"The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent."

[Better Today]

14. Yes, as bad as the overall info is, that's the passage that actually

made me vomit. I do mean seriously I went and vomited before I could finish reading. It's like finding out your best friend has been telling your ex to take you to the cleaners, or something. Betrayal, followed by despair.

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. It literally sickens me too.

And I'm no Pollyanna, and I'm no kid. I've seen a lot of slimy stuff in my time. This is on a par with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act by Phil Gramm.

Leahy, my God.

[femrap]

99. I am beginning to think

that the Senate is entirely corrupted. It has behaved as an enemy to the citizens and the Constitution. We are a land of laws for the Banksters....the citizens, be damned.

[Raster]

178. The Senate is corrupt. The Senate does NOT answer to the people.

The Senators kow-tow to those that put them in office, and have the means to keep them in office: the corporations and banksters.

Think of all the other bills supposedly languishing waiting for attention. Hasn't that been the excuse for inaction in Washington, D.C.? The Senate? It appears the Senate can move pretty damned fast WHEN IT WANTS TO.

[SOS]

203. The Senate has a long history of stomping on the American people

for the benefit of their wealthy owners.

Check this out:

David Graham Phillips, "The Treason of the Senate", Cosmopolitan (March, 1906)

"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous: interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom."

Could have been written this morning.

[femrap]

207. Amen and Awomen...nt

[Better Today]

218. I agree but let's not forget the House passed it in April pretty much secretly as well.

[Raster]

246. At the risk of the purity squad arriving to alert, I will say this again:

There may be two political parties in Washington, but they feed from the same trough, and by the same hand.

Corporate financial corruption infests both parties like bedbugs in a cheap New York hotel. The American system of lobbying is nothing more than institutionalized bribery of elected officials. NEITHER PARTY is meeting the needs of the average American citizen. The American government is NOT a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

[bobburgster]

270. Thank god we have a President who is fighting that! n/t

[rhett o rick]

287. I will save my thanks to god until we have peace in the world. Until then...........nm

[bobburgster]

323. Only a figure of speech for me....

I do not believe in god.

[rhett o rick]

327. I dont believe in the cruel Christian god. But I find it very strange for someone that doesnt

believe in god to use that figure of speech.

[bobburgster]

328. I was raised a Catholic.....

some things have stayed ingrained.

[bobburgster]

269. I am beginning to think that the Senate is entirely corrupted.

I agree!!

[CoffeeCat]

224. What bothers me the most...

...is how horrendously efficient these banksters can use our Congress. They need
to screw over the American public and protect profits--and within a few days--they
have a bill written and legislation whizzing through the Senate.

It's frickin mind boggling. They own our government. It is their plaything.

Look at how long it takes--and how many years of working through the system--it takes
ordinary citizens to get the "Amber Alert" laws passed or drunk-driving laws changed.
Citizens devout decades to making these changes. But the banks have legislation on the
President's desk only after a few days of the their criminal "rubber-stamping" of
foreclosures comes to light?

It went down like this: The public became aware that some banks rubber stamped thousands
of foreclosures--and the banks immediately knew they had to protect their interests. So,
they speed dial Congress, get legislation crafted and have it pass the House and Senate and
waiting on Obama's desk----within a matter of days.

Unimaginable.

These elected officials serve "We The People" not "We The Banks."

But they aren't. There can be no democracy with this behavior. This is so wrong. It's
just so bad that I also have a stomach ache.

I'm watching the President very closely on this. I think his actions will be a tipping
point for many Dems.

[bobburgster]

273. Are ready to tip his way??/

"I'm watching the President very closely on this. I think his actions will be a tipping
point for many Dems. "

Or will you immediately forget it....

[CoffeeCat]

303. Don't be so negative.

This is definitely an awesome thing that Obama did, by vetoing this bill.

I give credit where credit is due.

I'm a former Obama precinct captain. I was in the tank. I would much, much
rather be in the tank and have a President who puts the kabash on corporate-political
corruption and gives us Habeas Corpus back as he said he would.

I'm not asking for everything--just an end to the erosion of our democracy and
an end to corporate dollars and profits dictating how our government is run.

I would like nothing more to be a cheerleader.

Please don't insult people like me who only want the best for this country
and hold our elected officials accountable.

[bobburgster]

322. Yeah you're right...

I'm not a blind cheerleader, woodchuck, or whatever the insult of the week is. I've become a little shell shocked from all the nasty hits I have taken for being a supporter of Obama, and trying to engage in a civil discussion.. The reality is though, I should not have been sarcastic or negative. It does not do any of us any good, and for that I apologize.

[SusanaMontana41]

169. You take care, you hear? We need you. n/t

[Better Today]

221. Thank you for the caring, I needed that today. Thank you.

[molly77]

204. Have you ever thought our reps in DC had no choice?

TARP should have been an indication this country is fascist.That this bill passed with unanimous consent right before elections should tell US a lot.

[TBF]

71. None of them is "one of us" - if you mean that they are

actually helping individual non-rich folks. The lobbyists are in too thick - they are the ones who drive legislation.

[webDude]

5. You can outlaw a Judge doing his job? No way in hell, on this one.

[Better Today]

6. Yep, I've already posted this twice, but few seem to care.

[pa28]

12. Post it 100X or more.

I love this story because it tells so much about the problem in one snapshot.

I can think of two ways to solve the problem. First, we can make a real effort to get corporate cash out of the system. Second, we can require representation by lobbyist the way an accused criminal is guaranteed representation in court regardless of ability to pay.

Obviously that was a joke but the point remains the same. Trying for sweeping change is useless until we freeze the revolving door and take a stand against influence peddling.

[SusanaMontana41]

43. And it isn't even Friday yet.

Beyond disgusted.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. VETO time!

[Better Today]

17. What dream world do you live in? You must be stuck in the Campaign Obama dreamworld.

More likely he's holding to leverage his tax cuts bill that he wants because he seems to choose to give repubs and corporations some huge gifts in order to get a few little nibbles for the rest of us.

[Qutzupalotl]

215. White House official says they have concerns

"We are reviewing the legislation, but do have concerns," a White House official told HuffPost.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/7/908461/-White-House-has-concerns-about-notarization-bill

Call the White House or send a short email asking Obama to veto HR. 3808, Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act.

White House phone number: 202-456-1111
email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[Better Today]

225. Yeah, you're being played. They don't have concerns at the WH. They have an election to worry

about. As soon as these mid-termns are over, he'll sign it unless we go bananas on him before then. Thanks for the links we need them. However, I doubt he will veto or continue to stall on it after the elections. It's just not the right time just in case. Could you imagine the level of outrage if all this secretive, fast track shit was getting publicity today and he had also signed in secret? Dems would be finished. Nope, he's just being election savvy, that's all. Then we have to realize that if Congress passed this, both sides in relative secret and relatively unanimously as it seems, they could override a veto anyway.

PS. I SURE THE HELL HOPE I AM WRONG. I would be delighted for Obama to surprise me in a positive way for a change.

PSS. Does anyone know what happens if Obama just sits on it forever, neither signing nor vetoing?

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobburgster]

277. I'm glad to see this.....

"PS. I SURE THE HELL HOPE I AM WRONG. I would be delighted for Obama to surprise me in a positive way for a change."

Maybe, just maybe the guy gives a shit about you :)

[Go2Peace]

282. "Pocket" Vetoes only work if Congress is not in session?

When does congress end it's current session? If they are in session in 10 days from the first day it was on his desk it goes into law.

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in United States federal lawmaking that allows the President to indirectly veto a bill. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, it becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden (but see below). James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.<1>

[Arkana]

318. It's called a pocket veto.

[bobburgster]

275. Oh please,!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39556377/ns/business-real_estate/

[emsimon33]

45. If the bill passed the senate unanimously

then the senate can over ride a veto Besides. Obama is for the banks and the fat cats and not the people. He is trying to court us at the moment because the elections would have been a blood bath without us, but once the elections are over, he will go back to kicking us in the kidneys while calling us names! That's his style and we might as well get used to it.

[No Elephants]

59. Make them override then. Unless he's for this, too.

Make government work the way the Constitution says. Besides, there's no guaranty of an override. Being one of 100 unanimous votes is very different from voting to override a Presidential veto, especially a President of your own Party. And an override requires 2/3 of the House, too. Will that happen?

No, unless Obama vetoes, he owns this. Same with any other bill he signs, just like any other President.

[femrap]

102. Now that this legislation

has seen the light of day, Obama will have to think twice and about signing it. I've already emailed the White House. I will call as well.....everyone should do likewise. Please. Thank you.

[Knight Hawk]

84. Exactly!

We are finding out,painfully,who the MAN behind the curtain is.This country is not really divided between the Dems and Repubs,the division is beween the rich and the middle and lower classes.And the rich include many Dems. who use us to further their own agenda mostly to do with making them and theirs as rich and comfortable as possible off the backs and through the sweat of the middle and lower classes.And if you have an income of more than about 150,000 a year most likely you are one of "them".

[WestSeattle2]

103. It's been that way for decades - social issues divide the middle and

lower classes, while the rich and powerful quietly transfer the nation's wealth into their own pockets.

Someday people will wake up and take this country back. At the age of 50, I doubt it will be in my lifetime.

[bongbong]

149. Numbers

$150,000? That's chicken feed, literally.

I had an acquaitance (sp) who was a senior VP at (one of the most evil) banks. That paid him $650K a year + whatever bonuses he got. He lived in a $2M house. He also had a directorship at some company that required him to make a symbolic vote on something once a year; he didn't have to travel anywhere. That paid him $75K a year. And he sued some former (nearly as evil bank) because they didn't pay him his promised $500K signing bonus after he jumped to the (most evil) bank (he won that case). In short, he was totally connected.

Well, one day he & I got talking about the rich-vs-poor divide (and this was years ago before the current situation where this issue is on everybody's mind). At one point, he started a sentence with "Those rich guys think they can ...."

IOW, he didn't consider himself one of the "rich guys". And, in his circle, he WASN'T. Add 4 or 5 zeros to that $150K and then you can start thinking about the "haves".

The top 1% are making returns right now that the top .1% consider worthless; the top .1% are making returns that the top .01% consider worthless; the top .01% are making returns that the top .001% would consider worthless, and so on....

[bvar22]

189. Good.

WE can eat him first.

[pscot]

259. I'd rather not eat a banker myself

but if you want to roast one over a slow fire I'll turn the spit for you.

[bvar22]

285. I heard Bankers taste like Pork!

The fat, tender rump roast of someone who has never worked a day in his life will be Premium.

[northoftheborder]

106. just yesterday we were reporting on a "shiny bauble".......now I see why.....

[harun]

120. LOL, I can always count on a good laugh in the morning with my DU comrades!

When a bill helps only the upper class in this country, it doesn't need debate, or media coverage. It's fast tracked.

[Qutzupalotl]

192. It's not being fast tracked.

The WH is reviewing now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4567576

[Qutzupalotl]

228. Still laughing?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

[harun]

284. Nope.

[Go2Peace]

296. "pocket veto" is only a symbolic gesture unless congress is out

Honestly I am not sure of the schedule. Will they be out before the 10 day period expires? Otherwise this is just an empty gesture.

[depakid]

10. Obama should view this as a gift allowing him show whose side he's on

A veto would be a popular move and would go a long way toward rehabilitating his image among those who've grown cynical.

[SusanaMontana41]

44. It would, but he won't. That hand has been played. n/t

[davidwparker]

114. +1

but, but, but, they are more scary than us.

Be afraid and while afraid, VOTE for us.

[onenote]

248. how do those words taste?

[Go2Peace]

298. Trouble is, it is NOT a VETO. Congress has to end the session within 10 days

or the law passes. Are they going to be in session next week?

[bbgrunt]

11. wow. While all the media spends endless hours on

Palin, O'Donnell, etc., I have not seen one mention of any of this on even one news program. People should be screaming bloody murder! It must have passed the house too if it is already on his desk!

[Better Today]

13. I've sent emails to Rachel, Keith, Ed, and Lawrence begging them to

please, please make this a priority and soon!

[No Elephants]

61. Ed MIGHT. Not sure about the rest. Likeliest to be willing to cover it? Jon Stewart.

[Jefferson23]

175. I hope he does, who else with MSM tv power is likley to cover it? n/t

[Better Today]

227. Good point, I'll send one to him too.

[grasswire]

15. google says it passed the house in April while rules were suspended

Dirty tricks, dirty tricks.

[Better Today]

18. I was stunned when I read that because I really thought the House was

on our side. Stupid me.

[grasswire]

23. on a voice vote. no roll call.

How convenient.

[Better Today]

26. Tonight I feel the most discouraged, the most betrayed, the most desparate

that I have felt since Obama's inauguration. Every time shit like this has been happening (giving or protecting the rich and the corporations), it just makes the darkness that envelopes even blacker than before. It's becoming clear that only about 5 people in Washington, DC give a shit about any of us, until it's voting time. Which is probably why this was done secretly and will not be signed till after the election. Then he'll sign it, he's proven who he is, and he isn't our friend.

[grasswire]

31. it's like a kick in the stomach

I don't know how anyone could have any illusions anymore about what has happened. A corporate coup.

The people still do hold the power if they are willing to come together and express individual and collective outrage. A general strike.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. "A corporate coup" is right. This is legalizing crime after-the-fact.

So now they're officially above the law, in addition to being too big to fail. And they can buy our elections thanks to SCOTUS.

Two branches of government have joined the coup. One left.


And the odds aren't good. I'll be writing emails and phonecalling - a total act of faith at this point.

[davidwparker]

117. There's precedent for crime legalizing: No trials for

war crimes. Just sweep it under the rug.

[grasswire]

24. I googled the name of the act.

94,000 hits on the web. 1 hit on Google news.

[depakid]

38. Here's the actual legislation: H.R.3808.ENR

The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111gv3rJN::

[barbtries]

86. thank you

here's the entire bill:


H.R.3808 -- Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 (Enrolled Bill - ENR)

--H.R.3808--

H.R.3808

One Hundred Eleventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

An Act

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.

SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term `electronic record' has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).

(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is `logically associated with' an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

i'm a notary public, and i'm not seeing how this will cost people their homes. i don't even see things changing behind this.

please educate me. no snark here, i am sincere.

[femrap]

105. It allows for

'electronic' notaries which negates the entire meaning of a notary....where an individual has to attest that, 'Yes, I witnessed the signature of this individual.' How can an electronic machine attest to that????

Jennifer Brunner sent out a big email last week asking us to notify the WH that this is not right.

Does that help?

[happyslug]

118. "electronic signatures" have been the law for years

Again, rarely a problem in Foreclosure cases, the problem tend to be who actually owes the mortgage or a lack of paperwork to that effect (And by paperwork I mean actual paperwork AND/OR Electronic Paperwork).

[femrap]

126. Then why

even have notaries? What is the point if a machine is attesting to the identity of the signer. Certain states do not allow this.

[happyslug]

205. It is called the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause of the US Constitution

Under the Common Law, Notaries were NOT needed or even used. The problem was the Civil Law Jurisdictions of the Old Roman Empire (and later Germany) always required certain documents to be kept by a Notary. Thus in the Civil Law Jurisdiction a Notary is a type of lawyer.

The problem was during the Renaissance Europe reviled the Notary and started to demand documents to have Notary seals. The English, not being a Civil Law Jurisdiction, did NOT have notaries of the Civil Law type and thus invented what we call Notaries, i.e. Simple Oath takers.

Now since that invention (sometime before 1600) Parliament and later Colonial and State Legislature have demanded that certain paperwork have such notary seals. As a practice in derogation of the Common Law, such laws are strictly construed (i.e. if there is a way around the requirement, such way around the requirement is legal). On the other hand these laws are very old, dating to Colonial times (and in those states formed AFTER Colonial times, those states tended to adopt the laws and custom of some earlier State as their State law except as changed by legislature since they became a state).

Anyway, in addition to the above, we have the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause of the US Constitution which requires each state to give the laws of every other state "Full faith and Credit". A classic situation was Common Law Marriage. New York State NEVER recognized them, but Pennsylvania did. Thus you have a huge number of New York State Court Cases involving the validity of various Pennsylvania Common Law Marriages. i.e. did the couple fulfill all of the requirements of a Pennsylvania Common Law Marriage in Pennsylvania during a weekend getaway to the Poconos of Pennsylvania? If the answer was yes (and all that was needed was an exchanged of vows, no sex or even touching was needed) then it was a Valid Pennsylvania Common Law Marriage AND the New York Court would recognize it as such (generally in a divorce action, you do NOT end a Common Law Marriage by breaking up, it is a valid marriage and can only be dissolved by a Divorce action).

Notice these are New York STATE Cases interpreting Pennsylvania Law. Last time I check they were more Reported New York State Cases when it came to Pennsylvania Common Law Marriages then Pennsylvania Cases (Pennsylvania abolished Common Law Marriage on January 1st, 2005, Common Law Marriages entered into prior to that date are still valid, but after January 1st, 2005 you can no longer enter into Common law marriages in Pennsylvania).

New York Courts had to follow Pennsylvania law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The issue when it comes to the Full Faith and Credit Clause is what is covered and what is not. Generally something that occurs in one state is subject to the laws of that state and thus the laws of other states do NOT come into play (notice Pennsylvania Common Law only came into play when the Couple made a trip to Pennsylvania and stayed overnight together in Pennsylvania).

The problem we have today is not only do people move, their enter into contracts for credit with people from other states. Thus which state laws apply to the contract? When it comes to the Sale of Real Property, that generally must follow the laws of the state the property is in, but what of the Mortgage is entered into in another state? To be valid it has to be registered in the County Courthouse of the County the Real Property is in, but if the person holding the mortgage lives and has an office only in a separate state which laws covers the Mortgage? Every state requires anything to do with real property to be Notarized, but they has been a growing tendency to permit electronic signature and even electronic notarization. If the state the person holding the mortgage lives in permits such electronic notarization but the state where the actual real property does not, which laws affect the mortgage that goes from one person to another, both living in states different from where the property is located? IT is kind of Stupid to require someone from New York State and a Person from Delaware to travel to California to have a California Notary notarized the transfer from one to the other for a mortgage on land in California. AS a rule, up till the time of electronic Notarization, no one required such a move, it could be notarized in Delaware of New York.

Now, I suspect Delaware may be the problem here. A large number of banks have Corporate Charters from Delaware for it is a very friendly to management incorporation laws. In the 1990s the Pennsylvania Attorney General tried to enforce a State Law restricting Interest on Credit Cards to 18% if the bank was located within the state of Pennsylvania (The Federal Government had previously said the Federal Restriction was 21%). What the banks did was claim they were Delaware Corporations and as such the mere fact that they did all of their business in Pennsylvania did NOT make them subject to the 18% state limit, but being incorporated out of Delaware only the higher 21% limit applied. The Federal Courts accepted this, saying the mere fact you are in the state did NOT make you an in state business. The few remaining Pennsylvania banks then re-incorporated in Delaware so they could also charge 21% interest for Delaware had no restrictions as to interest rates.

Delaware and New York have always been much more pro bank then any other state in the union (and that is an achievement, given the rest of the state are also pro-bank).

Now, as you can see in the Credit Card Interest rate case, the "court" that determines what is interstate commerce is Congress. That has been the rule since the 1930s. This act, in effect says that anyone can have any documentation notarized in the state they are in and what ever that State calls a valid Notary MUST be recognized as such by every other state. Thus if Delaware permits electronic notarization, then Pennsylvania must accept that as a valid Notary (In fact, if Delaware would say any signature on any contract is the Notarization of that Contract, every other state MUST accept a signature made in that state as if it was notarized, no state has gone that far, but this act is that broad).

Now, it does NOT permit the laws of one state to overrule the laws of another as to requirements other then the Notary seal. For example, Pennsylvania requires any deeds to be WITNESSED by Two people in addition to being notarized. In my above example of a state that makes it the law in that state that any signature is also its Notarization, then no notary is required if the paper is signed in that state, but the two wittinesses requirements MUST still be followed.

Just some comments on what this law means. It just makes every state required to accept whatever is the notary requirement in whatever state any deed or mortgage is entered into OR transferred, even if those requirements are different from the state where the real property is located. It can even force a State to accept non-notarized deeds and mortgages from a state that no longer requires such deeds and mortgages from being notarized (As I said above NO state has done this).

Congress has the power to say the ability to transfer property across state lines is interstate commerce and as such it is best for interstate commerce if every state accept the notarization done in the state the transfer of real property is made in NOT the notarization requirements of the State the Real Property is located in. This seems to be the purpose of this law, nothing more.

[femrap]

206. Sorry, but I am inclined

to believe Jennifer Brunner over you.

As for that 'full faith and credit,' how long ya think that's gonna hold up when the currency is devalued?

[happyslug]

214. Here is her statement, but other then problems related to HOW some mortgages were Notarized nothing

Please note, the cases she cites, appear to be bad notaries even in the state they were done in and as such NOT affected by this proposed law. As I mentioned elsewhere they are problems with the paperwork when it comes to Foreclosures but those problems will still exist under this proposed law (i.e. the person did NOT appear in front of the Notary, the Notary just put his or her stamp on it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Brunner

Ohio Secretary of State office:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/

HEr actual News Letter as posted on Daily Kos"


Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 03:31:19 PM PDT

On Monday, September 27, 2010, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), on the Senate floor, asked that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of a bill that would hurt consumers. H.R. 3808 requires federal and state courts to recognize notarized documents from other states, including ones that contain electronic notarizations that are not subject to the same consumer safeguards of documents notarized in person. Some financial institutions are using electronic notarizations to process home foreclosure documents.

Sen. Casey asked that the Senate move forward with immediate consideration of the bill with unanimous consent that the bill pass with no other action or debate. The Senate passed the bill without amendment by unanimous consent. It now sits on the President’s desk. The President shouldn't sign it.

* Jennifer Brunner's diary :: ::
*

H.R. 3808 is known as the "Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act." It passed the House under a suspension of the rules in April 2010. It requires federal and state courts to recognize any notarization that is lawful in the state where the notary is licensed. Now, in one day, it passed in the Senate.

When I learned of it last Thursday, it sounded innocuous to me, but then I started looking at the timing of the bill. GMAC, owned by Ally, had just suspended its foreclosure actions in 23 states, including Ohio.

I had already referred Chase Home Finance, LLC, on August 23, 2010, to the U.S. Department of Justice, asking it to review and investigate Chase’s document notarization practices in home foreclosures (18,000 documents per month were being notarized by 8 people, along with other irregularities). I license notaries in the State of Ohio. Even though I don’t have the power under state law to investigate or prosecute, I couldn’t stand idly by without acting.

Last Wednesday, the day before I announced the DOJ referral, JPMorgan Chase announced it was having third party counsel review its document procedures for foreclosures. Just two days before, the U.S. Senate had rushed through H.R. 3808. Something didn’t seem right. Since then others agree with me.

Notarizing a document requires the signer to make a fundamental statement, an acknowledgment, before a notary public. It is used for documents of great sensitivity or value, like when the title of a car is transferred on its sale or when a bank tells a court how much is owed on a note for a mortgage when it wants to foreclose.

Some states have adopted "electronic notarization" laws that ignore the requirement of a signer’s personal appearance before a notary. A notary’s signature is that of a trusted, impartial third party, whose notarization bolsters the integrity of the document. Many of these policies for electronic notarization are driven by technology rather than by principle, and they are dangerous to consumers.

President Obama was presented with HR. 3808 on Thursday, September 30, 2010. As of today, he has not signed the bill. And he shouldn't.

Mortgages are now being used as backing for securities traded all over the world by financial institutions. When a mortgage goes into default, a "chain of title" (list of its owners) must be created. It’s being discovered that many financial institutions have taken shortcuts in creating a lawful chains of title that allow them to foreclose and take homes when they would not otherwise have the right under the law.

Banks demand we follow every letter of their contracts. We must demand they follow the law. It’s that simple. Please call or write the White House to tell President Obama not to sign HR 3808.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/5/907016/-President-Obama-Should-Not-Sign-the-Interstate-Recognition-of-Notarizations-Act

[Romulox]

311. Whether a mortgage attaches to a piece of real property (and in what priority) is uniquely

a matter of state law. Regardless of where the note-holder resides.

[happyslug]

313. I agree 100%, but it is possible to buy, sell, mortgage property in a different state

People own property that they never step on, this has been the case for centuries. Thus it is possible to buy and sell property in a different state using a notary form the state the Seller is in (even if a different state then where the property is located). That is what we are discussing here, the power of Notaries to notarize deeds and mortgages regarding property outside of the state where the notary is located.

[Romulox]

314. Right. But the real property (and the jurisdiction over it) stay put.

"Thus it is possible to buy and sell property in a different state using a notary form the state the Seller is in (even if a different state then where the property is located). "

OK. But this doesn't change a thing: whether the mortgage note attaches to the real property, and in what priority, remains a unique matter of state law. That means that the state will have either statutory or common law on just this subject--i.e. when and how to give effect to mortgage notes executed out of state. That's what this law proposes to supersede.

[boppers]

325. Thanks for the background.

Hugely informative post.

[barbtries]

161. helps greatly

thank you.

i did not get from the OP that the quibble came from the "electronic" notary provision. i'll read it again.

[happyslug]

116. I do NOT see a problem either, most problems are the lack of ANY paperwork not the lack of a seal

The problems most courts are seeing is the lack of the actual paperwork, explanation of why the paperwork no longer exists etc. Furthermore to chain of title as to who holds the mortgage, i.e. A Sold it to B, but C is the party foreclosing, no paperwork how C obtain ownership of the Mortgage.

Other problems is C is foreclosing, but the homeowner had been dealing with B, who he has always paid the mortgage to. A related problem is B is foreclosing, then C starts foreclosing, both claiming ownership of the Mortgage from A.

It is rare to have a problem with a Notary, and most courts will dismiss attacks on a bad notarization if the underlying problem is a failure to pay the mortgage. Thus this legislature is to cover those states that demand a in state notary..

An example of such a requirement is Pennsylvania which requires a Notary to have paid a special fee to Penndot to handle any license or related Driving/Automobile Ownership matter that needs Notarization. If the Notary had not paid the extra fee, they can NOT handle Penndot paperwork if such paperwork requires a notary. With this act, an out of state notary, could handle such paperwork and send it in to Penndot if such notaries could do the same paperwork in their home state, and Penndot could not complain that the Notary did not comply with Pennsylvania Law that requires them to pay an annual fee to handle Penndot related notarization i.e licenses, transfers of Automobiles etc.

Just a comment that I do NOT see this bill as being that important as to foreclosure, but may be important when a person has moved out of state and needs to transfer title to their car when the title is still held in Pennsylvania or a state with similar legal provisions.

[barbtries]

158. thanks for weighing in -

i felt so outraged when i first saw the headline, then i read the law, and it appears pretty innocuous to me. especially if, as you say, most of the problems arise from an absence of paperwork, not burdensome local laws relating to notarizations.

[snooper2]

194. Thanks for an intelligent post

Nice to see among all the hand wringing

[westerebus]

302. A question please.

I had thought a notary seal was a means to establish a chain of evidence? That the purpose what to establish the person on the one side, the buyer of the home was indeed the person s/he said they were, and the seller did possess the property for sale, if the transaction was a sale of property?

Am I mis understanding this?

[happyslug]

305. All a Notary is that you did something under oath, that is all

If you go to a Notary and with a note saying you are President Obama, and you sign it in the presence of the Notary, the Notary will notarized it that you signed it after taking an oath that it was true. The Notary is NOT saying it is true, but that you sworn an oath that is was.

Now, most notaries will insist on some sort of Identification that you are the person taking the oath and if you have no Identification they will NOT notarized the statement, but that is NOT they function under the law, they only function is that someone took an oath.

Remember we are talking of Common Law Notaries, Civil Law Notaries are a different animal. Louisiana, Mexico and Quebec are Civil Law Jurisdiction and as such their Notaries are a type of Lawyer who prepares papers and keep records (including wills). On the other hand a Common Law Notary will just notarized a paper after you appear in front of the Notary and sworn that it is true. A Common Law Notary just issues an oath. Most will keep records of what oaths they took and what ID those people presented them (and that is all the law requires of Notaries), but Notaries are NOT suppose to review any paperwork, that is the job of an Attorney, under the Common Law (Many Common Law Notaries do review paperwork, but that is the unauthorized practice of law and is illegal).

Common Law Notaries when asked about paperwork MUST refer the person to an attorney. Any advice such notaries give as to papers is the practice of law and is illegal for they are NOT attorneys (Which is where there differ from Civil Law Notaries who do prepare such papers, including Wills for Civil Law Notaries are a type of lawyer).

As to deeds, all the Notary is doing is saying the parties appear in front of the Notary and signed the deed (I should be more precise, the Seller of the property appeared in front of the Notary, Buyers, as a general rule, do NOT have to appear, the only signature that needs to be notarized is the Signature of the Seller). Most states require deeds to be "Acknowledged" i.e. two people signed that they witnessed the Seller signing the deed in front of a Notary. This has been the law since Colonial Days and in Colonial Days we did NOT have any thing like the IDs we have today, but no IDs were required then and are not required now (But it is considered good practice for notaries to keep a list of what they notarized).

As to chain of title that is the job of an Attorney and a Title Search done by that Attorney. It is the legal opinion of the Attorney as to who owns the property is what the Banks go by when the banks want to make sure the person who the banks are giving a mortgage to has a good title to the house. The Notary does NOT perform that function. If the Lawyer missed something doing the title search it is the lawyer who is liable for the subsequent bad title NOT the Notary.

[westerebus]

309. Thank you very much.

This is what I love about DU. Articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable people. Thanks again.

[Romulox]

312. In my state, the Notary is merely witnessing the signature

The notary is not attesting to anything other than witnessing a signature. It is the act of signing which signifies that the signatory is making a truthful statement, not the notarization.

[happyslug]

324. That is what I mean by an "oath".

The term "oath" as used in the law is when you make a statement that you claim to be true. In a notarized statement that is what you are doing when you have it notarized. The Notary do NOT ask you to saw "i Swear", you are doing that when you sign your name and have the Notary notarize whatever you are having notarized. The mere act of having it Notarized is the oath NOT someone saying "do you sweat to tell the truth".

[Better Today]

231. It's going to open the doorway for them to falsely electronically notarize

bogus documents that cannot be verified. For example, my loan passed through 3 banks in 18 months before landing at Citi, I am reasonably sure that the paperwork doesn't even exist anymore. So I demand the note, and the assignment of deeds from all three banks previous. My understanding, perhaps wrong, is that now I can demand the note. IF this passes, the only need to prove they have a MERS or MINS trail upon it, and don't have to have the note anymore at all, nor do they have to file anymore at the county level as in a lien since most counties require a copy of the original note and the assignment of deeds. That was all handled by someone transferring bulk loan packages, the individual notary stuff didn't happen to each loan.

Now they will be able to go back and simply pretend they did it right with a false electronic signature on a "Just now" created assignment of deed.

FURTHERMORE, with all the problems of fraud and scams related to electronics, like say voting machines, are we sure we want this so the banks can just hire hackers to create fraudulent signatures, docs.

Sorry, I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm not doing well at it.

[barbtries]

301. if you look elsewhere on this thread

you will find the complete bill. you read a lot into it that i did not. but, happily, it's moot now. the president is issuing a pocket veto.

[happyslug]

306. The Mortgage and the Assignments MUST be filed with your county Register of Deeds

If you want to check you have to go to your local courthouse and look it up. I heard some states have them on the net, but most just have them on computer that you can only access in their office. In my county that is the rule for any deed or mortgage since 2002. For Deeds and Mortgages before 2002 you have to use the index books (Interesting how they were set up, relatively quick to find almost any deed or mortgage via the books, not as quick as a computer, but quick).

Please note, in larger population Counties the books may NOT be that quick, but Cambria County is still 2/3 rural so it is a quick review, only about 10 times as long as a computer (and that is NOT bad for a paper based system compared to a Computer Based system).

[watrwefitinfor]

81. Not to worry. As soon as he signs it the media will be all over it.

It will then be Obama's bill.

Wat

[Mark D.]

252. He is not signing it.

Pocket veto. It automatically is a veto of unsigned when congress adjourns if he doesn't sign it. If they didn't adjourn, it would become law. But this veto is better than an actual veto stamp. They can NOT override it, since it's only technically a veto in this unique circumstance, not a true veto. In other words, with the many shortfalls of this administration, they did something right.

Senator Patrick Lehey disappointed me. What else disappointed me? That Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Al Franken (Senators to the left of Lehey) were not kicking up a fuss about this. Were they not in attendance, or not listening? Or are we over-estimating the risk to those being foreclosed upon? Kucinich and especially foreclosure-fraud hater Grayson. WHERE WERE THEY on this?

[Go2Peace]

299. So will congress be in session?

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. Some cheap robosigner's document can just take your home now, any of you

No problem. It doesn't even have to be right. And judges will be FORCED to recognize it.

Heeeeelllllllloooooo !!!! Anybody home? This is the big news story, right here!

Theft underway, much bigger than the mortgage crisis already was - this will be bigger. Anybody want to geometrically increase the economic disaster we already have? Here it is, comin' atcha.

Every major bank is guilty in this document fraud scandal that is just now heating up, and guilty on a massive scale, in every state. This is going to affect the majority of mortgages in this country it's so big. "Systemic" is what the AG of Ohio called it, and that's accurate. There is now proof that document fabrication has been industry standard practice. Not an occasional slip up, but the vast majority of key documents are illegal and inadmissable. That's why the banks are so desperate to get this hijack of our laws, to cover that massive fraud up. And to get away with it.

What if they fabricate an electronic foreclosure for YOUR home? Doesn't matter if you own it outright - it especially wouldn't matter if you're in a non-judicial foreclosure state. It would get rubber-stamped, and done.

I sure hope we're going to hear a super-loud chorus of outrage from all of those in Congress too. They all got rolled in broad daylight by the Senate. I'd be up in arms if I was one of them, wouldn't you?

[grasswire]

19. IT GETS WORSE

It essentially is a pardon for those who fraudulently passed the documents through. A PARDON. There will be no finding of fault after this bill is law.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. EXACTLY!

And the scale of the crime is massive. All of the major banks did it, all the time.

[Mark D.]

258. YOU

Have been a great advocate in your outcry against this. Thank you. Your initial post was inspiring. Now that we know the president is doing the right thing and getting rid of this without a veto they can override, using a pocket (technical) veto at a time of adjournment to nix this we are okay. For now. But as I indicated in a response above this is what scares me. Patrick Lehey didn't just let us down, Senators to his left (Franken, Feingold, Sanders, etc.) didn't protest this, at all.

In the House, I'd have expected Kucinich and foreclosure-fraud hating Grayson to be all over this. But they were not. Where were they? That is the question we must ask. Going after blue dogs for endorsing this is stating the obvious, we know how they are. But we need to have folks, you or others, who can find the time (my schedule is just too full right now) to track down those politicians I'd mentioned who we would THINK would be against this. Email, phone calls, etc.

One thing good about the liberals I've mentioned is they should respond. I would like to hear why they were not yelling about it. If we ever needed proof that the bankers run the government, this would be it. Obama's careful sidestep that put this one in the ground was brilliant, and surprised me after what myself and others thought was his own case of being banker-controlled. If he appoints Robert Reich to replace Larry Summers, we'd really have proof this isn't just a fluke.

But I'm being too idealistic. The biggest perpetrators of the fraud are JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America. BOA as the largest consumer bank, JP Morgan Chase as the largest financial institution (and per Forbes, the largest company period). They have power. We know this. They were the ones getting their toes stepped on having to halt foreclosures. I hope Eric Holder means it when he says he'll look into those frauds. JP Morgan Sr & Jr screwed the USA before, their bank still is.

[Better Today]

27. Additionally it forces local laws and rules to be entirely ignored, which should be outraging

all those teabaggers and conservatives. This is really showing that the Obama admin, the Repubs, and the Teabaggers are all hypocrites, from different POVs but hypocrites none the less.

[Go2Peace]

300. EXACTLY. In America the Elite have no accountability, they can just change the laws.

We saw the same thing with the Banking "Crisis". There should have been thousands of indictments. If it were you or I we would be in jail in a blink of an eye...

[AzNick]

20. Just a technical question: doesn't Obama sign ACTS into law and not bills?

I thought bills were sent by the House to the Senate, who then turned it into an act Of Congress, for the President to sign into law?

[glowing]

197. some school house rock for you

a bill is an act until signed into law by the executive branch. until then it's an act; then can become law.

[mikelgb]

22. Someone try and fucking tell me voting matters now.

Explain how voting for Dems will prevent this.

[Better Today]

29. Prevent it! They are the ones who allowed it to be passed without

so much as a roll call. They aren't going to do shit to stop it. Where's Grayson on this?!? With all his foreclosure concern of late, I would expect he would be letting us know about this. And as someone pointed out to me in one of these threads, even if Obama vetos, which I seriously doubt, it seems like both the House and Senate will 2/3rds it into law.

[No Elephants]

63. Please see Reply 59.

[truedelphi]

320. Grayson has been YouTubed speaking up about this.

Link is here, though you have to scroll down to see embedded Grayson YouTube.

http://www.correntewire.com/moment_truth_president_obama#more

[Knight Hawk]

93. I will

Vote against 95% of the people in office in every election at every level for some time.Let people spend a lot of time ,energy and money trying to get elected so they can make themselves powerful and/or rich and after they have served ther first term with all new members of the House ,Senate or whatever UNLESS they have been 95% for the average man vote them out .Make it where it is impossible to use an office to enrich yourself.Term limits would be great but it is not going to happen.Right now I believe you could vote in the first 100 names in the phone book and you would have a BETTER U S Senate.At least they would be so confused and non agendized they would cause less harm than these greedy(for money and/or power)people in our Senate now.

[Lorien]

254. Well, my congressman is Alan Grayson, so I have someone to vote for

if I had a Blue Dog instead I'd write some other name in.

[bos1]

292. Obama refused to sign! I expect you to CELEBRATE!

Party's ON at my house

[mikelgb]

307. Sweet

Very Pleased with Obama on this indeed. Congress, not so much.

[grasswire]

25. cmon everyone....kick this thread and post it other places

This story needs to go viral.

[pa28]

30. Agree. So, a shameless kick.

Even a non-Nobel prizewinner can spend about a minute away from facebook and come to a really startling conclusion here.

[grasswire]

32. heh n/t

[grahamhgreen]

33. Cmon Obama I know u can veto!

[mikelgb]

34. kick

[grasswire]

36. the lines to the WH are open

white house phone call 202-456-1111

"Do not sign H.R. 3808”

[me b zola]

219. Thank you for posting

I called the WH and left a message for the President to veto the bill.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. It's called the INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS ACT

or HR 3808.

Link to txt of bill:
: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3808

White House email here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Phone: [phone]

[depakid]

41. AKA the "Lowest Common Demoniator and Fraud Preservation Act"

[saigon68]

109. LOL

[femrap]

111. I had to wait quite a while

but finally someone answered....she had no idea what HR3808 was....so I explained. I don't see why she couldn't just pass the message 'Veto HR 3808.'

[neverforget]

40. Welcome to the CSA : Corporate States of America.

[truedelphi]

47. So much for the Change-y Hope-y kinda of stuff that we were promised.

I never expected a pony, but to allow unfettereed greed go on and on, with the Senate members and the big banks in collusion against normal hard working people!!!!

I DON"T CARE THAT YOU CALL YOURSELVES SENATORS!

I CALL YOU THIEVES!

[Waiting For Everyman]

42. Ohio's Sec. of State Brunner is asking for us to push on this

Her press release:

Please tell President Obama NOT to sign the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/10/06/please-tell-president-obama-not-to-sign-the-interstate-recognition-of-notarizations-act/

at the end she says:
"Banks demand we follow every letter of their contracts. We must demand they follow the law. It’s that simple."

Amen, Sistah!

[Citizen Worker]

50. We want Obama to VETO the legislation. Simply not signing the bill won't stop it. After 10 days it

will automatically become law. Known as a "pocket veto" it will become law. It's in the Constitution.

[Waiting For Everyman]

53. Am I right that the clock started ticking last Thursday? n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. It's automatically dead in 10 days if the Congress is adjourned.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/pktveto.htm

[Better Today]

239. HOLY SHIT! THIS IS THE REAL REASON THE SENATE ISN'T ADJOURNED!

Remember last week when we were told it was to make sure Obama did no recess appointments.

[onenote]

251. I'm gathering that you aren't DU's most foremost constitutional scholar

despite your use of all caps.

Do a little research. THere is ample precedent for pocket vetoes to be used during intrasession recesses of more than a few days. Plus, until we see exactly what the President says/does in connection with his refusal to sign, we won't know if he is claiming a pocket veto (which means the veto can't be overriden) or a regular veto (in which case it can). The line between these types of vetoes has been blurred in recent years.

[Better Today]

237. TEN DAYS IS ALMOST UPON US! That would be like TODAY, right?

[nenagh]

85. Thank you.. this link reached the White House email address...

[femrap]

110. Jennifer Brunner ran in Ohio's

Primary for Senator. She had absolutely no money. Harry (a-hole) Reid gave huge fundraisers for her opponent, Fisher, who is now trailing Portman (W's Trade Representative who sent lots of jobs to China). If Brunner were facing Portman, she'd give him a damn run for his money. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, all the Dem Senate Leadership wanted a 'money/corporate dude' in their ranks.

Jennifer Brunner is one of the honest, intelligent, fighters for Democracy. I can't say enough about how much I admire her.

And now she will be out of office....and just watch another 'Ken Blackwell' will be elected by the name of Husted...a crazy, bible-thumping repugnant.

[truedelphi]

46. You guys want me to vote for a Dem for President 2012? You better hope that

Grayson is available and certified as the Dem's candidate - nothing happening under this Adminsitration is helping any one I know who is attempting to have their home mortgage re-modifie4d. I ahve gotten tot he point that when I think of Obama, I think of BP, I think of Monsanto, I think of his buddy Geithner, I think of how imperilled this nation is under the man who was supposed to bring us HOPE and instead has brought us so much corruption.

Four homes out of the six across the street from me are now vacate, and my closest neighbor feels they are about to lose their home. This family has been attempting to have the re-modification process succeed for over ten months. And the bank consistently tells them they can't find the paperwork, although the bank had the paperwork several months ago.

Full story of all the S___ going on can be found here:

http://www.correntewire.com/moment_truth_president_obama#more

And yeah for Grayson, and BOO for all the Senate members who voted for this slime ball bill.

[BzaDem]

54. How do you know Alan Grayson opposed this bill? It passed by voice vote in the House, and he didn't

ask for a recorded vote.

[TBF]

72. Really good point - I don't think we can trust any of them. nt

[glowing]

201. I know the last thing anyone with little income needs is to pay a laywer, but it helps

it's easier for the banks to roll u over when u are emotionally invested. it's much harder to do to a lawyer. until I hired one, they did the same thing to me. now that I have one, they keep trying to negotiate on a recorded line without my lawyer. I just tell them any offer you have, please send it to the lawyer. yes we would like to negotiate, but we hired representation. we expect you to honor that. I'm not going to speak about any more matters on a recorded line. believe me, they will use what you say against you later on. they hate for you to hire a lawyer who know what rights within the law that we have.

these banks need to take some loss and cram down the loan. investors aren't even buying the many properties sitting empty out in suburbia land. the congress should be creating laws forcing them to negotiate after the tarp bailout; not work against homeowners and America.

[truedelphi]

319. A couple of people here have hired lawyers, and they say it didn't seem to help them

But I am glad that your lawyer was able to help you.

[Citizen Worker]

48. The betting window is open. Step up folks and place your bets. Will Obama sign the legislation

following an "extensive and in depth review?" Or, will he pocket veto the bill letting it become law without his signature. There's alot of campaign cash riding on this so what say ye'? Contrast this fast tracked bill to the extension of unemployment compensation. This is another simple and straightforward bailout of the banks at the expense of workers. And remember it was unanimous. Scoundrels of the lowest order, one and all!

[JDPriestly]

49. What concerns me is the reliability of the underlying documents,

the documents that the affidavits completed by the foreclosure mill firms are based on.

Will it be possible for any person now paying off a mortgage to get a title that is free and clear of all potential liens? Will we be able to get title insurance on our properties?

If the banks and other lenders are resorting to the use of foreclosure mills that don't really review the underlying documents, what does that say about the underlying documents and the actual ownership of the loans and the title?

Does this mean that if I pay off my loan in a couple of years, I won't be able to get a reliable reconveyance of the title?

I can't believe that Leahy would do this. How much money is he being paid for pushing this bill through? Whose side is he on? Which other Democrats voted for this?

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. Check this out...

Forgeries impact on title insurance (it will impact all properties)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0327991020101003?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c0.110744:b38064534:z0

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/massive-mortgage-mess-update-title-companies-stop-insuring-foreclosed-properties

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/10/the-title-insurance-issues-at-the-heart-of-the-foreclosure-fraud-crisis/

Forgery price sheet published (yes, they actually had one!)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/10/4closurefraud-posts-docx-mortgage-document-fabrication-price-sheet.html


Even if the banksters get away with enacting this criminal atrocity, title companies are not going to go out on a limb and certify titles, hoping for the best. And even if the title companies did, the "market" would not have any confidence in it. Nothing will get sold, unless this massive document fraud scandal is straightened out CORRECTLY and LEGALLY - by black letter law, not some sham retroactive pardon. It isn't going to work, even if Obama is insane enough to sign it.

[girl gone mad]

51. Now we know precisely what kind of government we have..

and whose interests it is determined to protect, at all costs.

[notesdev]

55. If you weren't yet convinced that the banks own our government

this should put any uncertainty to rest.

Look at how fast and without dissent the process moves when the banks' interests are on the line.

Compare and contrast to how it goes when the rest of us are on the line.

[rasputinkhlyst]

56. >>>>Spread this FAR AND WIDE

IF this information is correct, then voters need to whip them all into shape!

[Hubert Flottz]

57. "Bipartisanship"

One sided.

[jimlup]

58. Guess we know who really owns the world!

Time for some push back yes but inconveniently we have to wait a few weeks which is why the damn bill probably passed with "no public debate"

[indimuse]

60. Fl Judge already

ruled AGAINST Grayson
plea to STOP foreclosures and The Foreclosure Mills in FL!


WHAT has happened to America? ;(



KNR!!!!

[Cass]

62. I am so sick of politicians patting us on the back with one hand while knifing us with the other.

What a massive betrayal. WTF is wrong with these people??

[myrna minx]

64. Now that's bipartisanship we can believe in!

:puke: Quit whining liberals and buck up! Sit down and shut up.

[No Elephants]

65. TARP Bank Bailout Phase 3.

If retroactve, isn't this an ex post facto law as to folks losing their homes? How about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?

When Republicans wanted to keep Shiavo alive, Democrats yelled about states rights. What about state control of local real estate lending?


Ever since the feds put out a very poorly supported statement about how rich folks are the ones walking away from mortgages, I've been waiting for a federal law making people personally liable for mortgage obligations. I did not see this one coming, though. However, this makes me believe even more that I was correct about non-recourse mortgages being on their way to dodo land.

[Nihil]

88. And organised so smoothly too ...

> I did not see this one coming, though.

I don't think that was by chance.

We've disagreed over things in the past but there is no way that I'd put you
down as "unobservant" so I really don't think there is anything to fault with
your surprise.

OP>> ... quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.
OP>>
OP>> The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main
OP>> sponsor, Republican Representative ...

No noise, no ripples, no dissent, no warning ... talk about a stealth weapon ...

[shawn703]

66. This makes me sick to my stomach. FRANKEN? FEINGOLD? SANDERS??

All of our "heroes" in the Senate voted for this piece of shit? It can't get any clearer than this bill and the votes on this bill to show who really runs this country.

[Waiting For Everyman]

68. It was by a voice vote in both houses

and I'll bet it was rather empty both times.

Just a hunch. (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 deja vu)

[shawn703]

101. All three voted Yea on a measure later that same day

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00241

I'd say chances are pretty good they were there for this vote, especially since you need a quorum (51 Senators) to conduct business.

[Waiting For Everyman]

69. Please everyone tweet the OP article and put it on Face Book for others to help spread

Also this alert from Ohio's Sec of State Jennifer Brunner on Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/5/907016/-President-Obama-Should-Not-Sign-the-Interstate-Recognition-of-Notarizations-Act

She gives links to the White House contact info at the end. At least we have ONE official who's aware of this and on our side so far. I'll bet others aren't aware because of campaigning.

[salib]

70. Bought and sold

Hey,and it did not even need 50 votes.

Bet it will not need 67 either....

[Dinger]

73. Kick And Rec

Obama better look at this as an opportunity.

[nenagh]

74. Emailed the White House..

Under 'Housing'..

Said Obama's legacy of Health Care Legislation will be lost if he does not veto this legislation..

He will be remembered as standing up for the banks against the people...

What a pivotal moment...

[obxhead]

128. Oh he will be known for it all.

Standing up for big banking over the people.

Standing up for big insurance over the people.

Standing up for big pharma over the people.

and recently confirmed, standing up for big oil over the people.

[RoseMead]

75. Pardon me while I rant

You know, it's hard enough being a liberal in this damned redneck paradise. I have my conservative, fundy neighbors, friends and family members to deal with, and that's a given, I've been accustomed since childhood to dealing with their brand of stupid. But lately, I've been getting into disputes with my fellow Democrats - including some of the most liberal ones - because so many of them are fed up. They do NOT want to vote for Manchin. Some are already saying they'll vote for the Mountain Party candidate, some are considering sitting the election out. I've been pushing and prodding, trying to remind them that Democrats really are better than Republicans, urging them to hold their nose and vote for Dem candidates even though they aren't liberals. The resulting tension has caused me many headaches and heartaches, but I've been soldiering on, saying Dems are better, Dems are better...

Then we get this shit.

How, please tell me how, am I supposed to go out now, less than a month before the election, and inform my friends and neighbors about this abomination, fire them up, urge them to fight against it - AND simultaneously keep telling them "Dems are better?" How do I do that? I mean, I'd like to be able to do it without looking like an idiot, I do have some pride, but I'm not sure under these circumstances that I can do it at all. I feel a responsibility toward the people I try to inform. How can I tell them that Dems are better with a straight face? At this point, it's a wonder they haven't all told me to go straight to hell.

THIS is the shit that is driving so many of us up a fucking wall. It's not that we didn't get our damn pony, it's not because we're one-issue voters, and it certainly isn't because we're trolls/freepers/teabaggers/libertarians/Republicans. It's because we really believe - or, in some cases, believed - that we're doing the right thing in always supporting Democrats, and in some cases, we've put ourselves out on a limb personally to do so, and then we are repeatedly stabbed in the back by these feckless motherfuckers who supposedly "need" our help.

We hear all the time about how politicians have to keep their constituents happy - that's always the excuse when a Democrat votes for some right-wing piece of garbage: they had to do it to keep favor with their voters. Well, here's my message to the ruling class: 1)This constituent is NOT happy, and 2)if you really "need" my help, you need to QUIT SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERMINING MY CREDIBILITY WITH THOSE VOTERS YOU WANT ME TO WIN OVER!

Jesus.

[Nay]

107. Exactly, Rose. And let me add one more point about calling the WH, writing

letters to Obama, etc. No one should have to write even one letter or make one phone call to Obama -- if he doesn't already know that this act is a complete abomination and that he should veto it, then we've elected the wrong guy.

[femrap]

115. Mighty rant....thank you.

I'll just add 'fatherf*ckers' to it.

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Fred and Wilma.

[Autumn Colors]

76. Michael Moore...

K&R. Emailed White House. Will call later.

In addition to Keith, Rachel, etc., I sent a link to this article to Michael Moore because he's been so vocal about the foreclosure crisis. Hope he'll mobilize his followers and friends in Hollywood who can get this into the public eye quickly.

[JHB]

77. E-mailed to WH:

Kept it polite, respectful, and "reasonable", but put in my $0.02:

I strongly urge the President to veto H.R.3808 "The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010".

There is currently a serious question whether out-of-state notarizations of mortgage documents were legally obtained, including some apparent cases of outright fraud. Mortgage contracts require the the creditors keep proper documentation of their claims. On the issue of limiting Wall Street bonuses, the public was reminded of the sanctity of contracts. Why should mortgage contracts be any different? This law would change notary laws in such a way that would encourage fraudulent manufacture of documentation post facto. This undermines good faith in both our legal and economic structures.

In addition to rightness or wrongness, there will be a lot of anger when people lose their homes due to fraudulet foreclosures, and your political opponents won't hesitate to point that anger at you for signing the bill, and at Democrats in general.

No good will come of this. Please, veto this bill.

[dotymed]

78. Was Bernie Sanders

there for the vote?

[deutsey]

79. My, my...so the Senate CAN actually act quickly.

On some things, anyway.

:evilfrown:

[Lost4words]

80. K & R! nt

[Vinca]

82. He had better not sign the bill . . . that's all I can say.

[barbtries]

83. what is the name or the number of the bill?

i'm writing to the white house to express my displeasure. the reuters link isn't working for me

[JHB]

87. See posts 38 and 39 above

[barbtries]

89. yes i did thank you

[flyarm]

90. ahhhh but we could not even get the sell out Public Option bill with a roll call vote???????

nooooooooooooo..we needed a super majority we were told..

but selling the people out on their biggest investment of their homes?? No Problemo!!!!!!!!

what a fucking joke!

And people here even at DU bullying us for our votes????????? After getting called names by this administration, our properties in the Gulf crashing in value while the White House covers up the disaster we have experienced in the Gulf , putting our livelyhoods and our property values and yes even our health at risk levels never seen before..while giving immunity to the telecoms for shitting all over our Constitutional right..while protecting war criminals, and expanding war in Afghanistan, while raping our public schools for the richest to privitize our shools using our tax dollars for Charter Schools..and now superceding our state laws and putting our homes at risk of the biggest crooks!!!!!!!!

I think my ballot will sit on my table until the cow jumps over the moon!

They can kiss my ass!

[Autumn]

121. Fucking joke indeed, your post

says it all. It is amazing what they can accomplish, when they want to.

[cornermouse]

91. k & r

[Enthusiast]

92. The banks own this

fucking country.

[fasttense]

94. This is an awful bill but

it seems to me there is a whole lot more wrong with the fraudulent foreclosures then simply notarization.

But allowing fraudulent notarization will not help anyone.

[Enthusiast]

95. I told President Obama:

"Do not sign H.R. 3808”

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthCarolina]

97. Is there anyone left that still believes the Dems are advocates of the people? n/t

[femrap]

98. I had gotten an email from

Jennifer Brunner, current Sec'y of State of Ohio, to notify Obama NOT to sign this legislation. I guess she is the only person who cares about us 'little people.'

If he signs this, this is not only a slap in the face to the 'little people,' but a complete cocks*ck to the Banksters whom, I guess, rule our country now. We are no longer a democracy but a dictatorship run by the Money Boyz who love to watch the 'little people' suffer.

[BetterThanNoSN]

100. Once upon a time....

there was a party of NO, what the hell happened to ya's? They're overwhelmingly corporate shills, both parties.

[northoftheborder]

104. So sneaky - it's frightening.

[CanonRay]

108. Once again "The fix is in"

Ahh, dear old Dad, you are right yet again. As a teen I thought your insights into politics and human nature were crude and cynical. Actually, you were spot on.

[femmedem]

112. I just sent the link to the editorial staff of my local paper.

I live in CT, where Blumenthall last week put a temporary halt on foreclosures, so I'm hopeful they'll see the local angle and write about it.

I also posted the link on FB.

Now to call/e-mail the WH.

[COLGATE4]

113. As an attorney who has spent 25 years + in commercial issues

and litigation (including e-documents) I don't see where this changes anything. If the concern is about a phony notarization of documents, the e-notarization can be challenged in court the same as a paper one can be now. I don't see where this upsets the status quo at all.

[Romulox]

119. Notorization has been regulated by the Feds for the last 25 years?

It's been a while since the bar exam, huh? :hi:

[COLGATE4]

146. No, nor has e-documentation. I was merely stating that I have

dealt with commercial issues for 25+ years, and with e-document issues since that became law in the late 1990's. What does that have to do with the question I asked?

[Romulox]

147. I've dealt with notaries for several myself. Fraudulent stamps are the rule, not the exception.

Just saying. :shrug:

[COLGATE4]

154. I wouldn't agree with you on that. That may be your experience,

but it certainly has not been mine. Having said that though, there certainly are cases of phony or otherwise illigetimate notarizations. My point is that it's a lawyer's job to question everything, including notarizations, and we do it. It's not all that likely for a phony notarization to survive a court challenge. But of course it does happen. No system is perfect.

[Romulox]

164. Are you joking? Never witnessed a doc. notarized without a signature witnessed?

It strains credibility. I've seen it hundreds of times. Literally. The larger point is that notarization is in no way inherently reliable. It's a ridiculous and archaic practice.

edit: ummm....excerpt from the article linked in the OP: :hi:

A deposition made public by Cox was what first called attention to improper affidavits by GMAC. Since then, GMAC, JPMorgan and others have halted foreclosure actions in many states after acknowledging that they had filed large numbers of affidavits in which their employees falsely attested that they had personally reviewed records cited to justify the foreclosures.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006?pageNumber=1

[w4rma]

184. So the defense is "every one is doing it", again? Even when that's not true. (nt)

[Romulox]

187. No, the argument is that having a bookkeeper get out an ink stamp doesn't prove anything. nt

[w4rma]

212. It's the law. And it is the law to prevent the very problems that we are having right now.

And if it no longer becomes the law of the land then the problems will get much much worse. Imagine the massive fraud upon and theft from Americans that removing this law will create.

[Waiting For Everyman]

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

Wouldn't you say that sort of defeats the purpose of a notary?

Why bother at all?

Why don't we just say that we can make up any bullshit we want and have it accepted in court as fact? It'll be "catch me if you can" law. That's how the banks have been operating anyway, but at least as it is now, that's a crime.

Why bother with laws either. We can just say the banks can do whatever they want. That'll be much more efficient.

[COLGATE4]

151. What makes you think that the way notarization is done today

is any different? Anyone with $50 bucks can get to be a Notary. Companies have hundreds of employees who are notaries. There is nothing inherently reliable in the notarial process. You can try and make up "any bullshit you want and have it accepted by a court" but I would advise you that it's probably a real bad idea. Electronic transmission of documents and notarizations is a fact of life and is here to stay, like it or not. If you question a notarization, you do it regardless of whether it's paper of electronic. In fact, I am informed by IT people that it's a lot easier to catch a phony e-notarization than a paper one.

[Romulox]

155. Agreed. It is the last private "seal" that has any validity in American law, and its stupid

Notarization means nothing, and should be abolished.

[nenagh]

133. The Reuter's article indicates..

'the law specifically includes "electronic" notarizations stamped en masse by computers'

and that currently only about a dozen states allow electronic notarizations...

IANAL, but the phrase 'stamped en masse by computers' that I found disturbing..

But I am supposing and you are the legal eagle :)

[dkf]

134. A voice of reason.

Thanks.

[still_one]

145. funny that other attorney's are saying how bad this bill is. Also, if it is so good

why was it done so anonymously?

[barbtries]

170. thank you

i'm a notary, i read the entire law, it seems really innocuous to me. i email notarized documents to the attorney routinely, saving the original notarized document.

my interpretation of this law is that from now on, if it's notarized, it's considered to be notarized.

[notesdev]

171. That's not the issue

the issue isn't phony notarizations of documents, it's notarizations of phony documents. A notary has no obligation to investigate the truth of the document, only to witness the signature.

[sabrina 1]

286. Thank you.

[TheKentuckian]

243. Spoken like someone who gets paid for court time.

It doesn't change anything because you are confident it won't be you and if it is you will profit.

For some of us these little episodes are life wreckers. When my house burned down and I lost everything my ex-boss had the mentality that it was an opportunity to gaffle the insurance, I saw it as where the hell am I going to go and damn it I just bought a full load of groceries and I've hardly got anything to eat on till payday.

Not to mention the resources and time to battle evil nonsense are not equally distributed. Some of us have to suck up our fuckings whether they are earned or not because the cost of fighting back is above our pay grade and there is a long line that has done far worse than me.

[treestar]

278. Amen. This outrage is a massive, massive FAIL

And a petty one at that.

[davepc]

122. Ahhh, just some more hope and change!

Yes we can!

[Better Believe It]

123. Here's the vote in the House and Senate on this anti-consumer bill:

H.R. 3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.

Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Having passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, this bill now awaits the signature of the President before becoming law.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

See. They can get stuff passed really fast when it's demanded by their constituents on Wall Street!

They don't even need to take a vote!

Thanks Reid and Pelosi. Good job!

Will President Obama quietly sign this bill without any media notification?

[Waiting For Everyman]

132. Just like the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was done.

Thanks, BBI.

[Catherina]

139. "A record of each senator’s position was not kept."

"A record of each senator’s position was not kept."

That tells you all you need to know.

[flyarm]

179. These crooks plan to do the same kind of vote on our Social Security!

In December..with a Roll Call vote..with no accountability and no public vote!

[eridani]

124. Contact DNC too

http://my.democrats.org/page/st/contactissues

Please tell them thategislation like this is going to destroy the Democratic Party! Judges will be FORCED to recognize fraudulent foreclosures.

[still_one]

131. The problem is the way this legislation was pushed through, what good is it to call? They obviously

knew what they were doing, and it sure wasn't working for the "we the people", at least as far as Congress is concerned

The only real influence we "might" have is calling on the White House to veto it.

After this kind of monkey business, why should people be enthusiastic about democrats?

[JHB]

136. If a stink is made, they may reconsider the pitfalls...

...if no one says anything, then all the pressure on them is from those who want it passed.

[still_one]

142. i will call the white house because the president is the only one who can stop it now /nt

[eridani]

264. Which is precisely what they need to hear

And they won't if you don't tell them.

[Evasporque]

125. So with faked docs you can steal someones house....

great....with mortgages being sold, resold packaged, etc. it is near impossible to refute bogus documents...before you have been tossed out and your home sold.

[COLGATE4]

157. The problem is not with the electronic notarizations per se. The problem

is that the documentation on these transactions is so fragmented that it's like trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

[dkf]

310. How many people were current with their mortgage and yet foreclosed on?

This is the number I am interested in.

[CanonRay]

127. So this shit they can agree on and pass

but not unemployment? Our government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street.

[flyarm]

180. and the banks..it is fascism yet?????

[joeybee12]

129. I'm shocked They're screwing over the people! Shocked!

This NEVER happens.

[tpsbmam]

135. And they wonder why there's an "enthusiasm gap"

Hell-fucking-o Democrats! Instead of blaming any losses on progressives (you know, your loony left), how about you look in the fucking mirror and look into your corporate-owned souls. Unbelievable.

K&R

[bos1]

294. Obama refused to sign! I expect you to CELEBRATE and get ENTHUSIASTIC

[tpsbmam]

304. I will always celebrate & get enthusiastic when they do something right.

Unfortunately, I don't get to "celebrate & get enthusiastic" often these days. Do you run around threads going after people when they criticize Democrats and the administration when they fuck up? You seem to be making assumptions about me -- do you have something to base that on? I supported the hell out of Obama and will damn well criticize him when he acts like a corporate owned shill, which he's done quite often since assuming office. And I'll cheer him when he breaks out of that mode. Wish he'd do it more. I'm out there working my ass off to get a good Democrat elected to the senate in 2010, one that (if elected) would add to the progressive group in the Senate. What are YOU doing for the Democrats and the country? Or are you content just to wave the don't criticize flag at others and rah-rah'ing the Dems/Obama no matter what they do?

"I expect you...." Bite me.:grr:

[bos1]

315. you're the one promoting the so-called "enthusiasm gap"

and the more you do that the more you undercut your own efforts to get good Democrats elected this November. Get some anger management and join the party

[tpsbmam]

316. I've been here since 2006. I have yet to use ignore. Congrats -- you're my first! nt

[Luciferous]

137. I don't know how anyone can support these crooks and liars anymore.

I'll write to the White House, but it probably won't do a damn bit of good.

[truckin]

138. This is disappointing to say the least. I emailed my

congressman, who is one of the few politicians I trust, and asked him how he voted and why. We'll see what he comes back with.

[progressoid]

140. And virtually no media coverage of this.

:banghead:

[still_one]

143. that shows just how irrelevant they have made themselves /nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. If I were under 40, I'd emigrate--seriously

This country is no longer what it claims to be. Hasn't been for a long time.

When I myself was under 40, I had three opportunities to emigrate, and I didn't take them, because I thought, "Oh, things are bad now, but they'll get better."

Silly me.

I may still leave for one of those foreign countries that accepts American retirees if the Dems make good on their "promise" to "reform" Social Security.

[Luciferous]

156. I'm 29 and I've been trying to get my husband to leave for

about 8 months now. When health care "reform" passed I was fed up. I would really like to move to New Zealand, and I have more than enough points to qualify for residency but my husband is stubborn and won't leave. He has British citizenship and would be willing to move there, but they have enough of their own problems and I honestly don't see it being much better than the U.S. at this point.

However, if the politicians continue to screw up this country like this I might just move without my husband!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

291. In Britain, you'd at least have health care

:shrug:

But New Zealand would be lovely.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

144. 1-202-456-1111 Pick up the phone right now!

Call the White House and let them know you oppose President Obama signing HR. 3808

H.R. 3808,the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act”, requires federal and state courts to recognize 'electronic notarizations' that are not subject to the same consumer safeguards of documents notarized in person. This bill was considered immediately after it's introduction and quickly passed the house & senate and awaits Obama's signature.

We know that banks have taken shortcuts in creating lawful chains of title that allow them to foreclose and take homes when they would not otherwise have the right under the law. Banks demand we follow every letter of their contracts. We must demand they follow the law. This bill could help to quietly change the law retroactivly to make what the banks are doing legal, since it's currently not.

A notary’s signature a trusted, impartial third party, whose notarization bolsters the integrity of the document (i.e. confirms dates that a mortgage was transferred and between which parties). Some states have adopted “electronic notarization” laws that ignore the requirement of a signer’s personal appearance before a notary. Making all states accept "electronic noterization" takes away oversight and invites fraud.

President Obama was presented with HR. 3808 on Thursday, September 30, 2010. As of today, he has not signed the bill.

[still_one]

148. done, and the operator knew the exact bill I was referring to, so people are calling /nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

163. Same here. The operator was very "responsive."

Thank you for calling.

[truckin]

166. You can also go to this address to email the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

I sent a message that said in part, "If you sign this Bill then I have to believe that this country has officially been sold out."

[Romulox]

150. I daresay that the law of real property (which this directly impacts) is off limits to the Feds

I think this presents a Constitutional issue, potentially.

[COLGATE4]

159. Why?

[Romulox]

168. They seem to be getting at the validity of mortgages with this.

That's how, not "why". :hi:

[The Uncola]

152. Should Obama sign this POS...

... it for me, will be the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back."

Though I might be angry and vocal now, about this administration's lack of attention to those things that could make a difference in my family's life, I will still get out and vote Democrat in November. This blatant slap in my face WILL change that. And you can deposit that with one of your bankster buddies.

[ProSense]

153. Does anyone know why Senator Leahy pushed through this bill?

Here is the PDF

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interstate Recognition of
Notarizations Act of 2010’’.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization
made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws
of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located
if—
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce;
and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s
authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information
is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic
record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.
Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State
shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public
licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than
the State where the court is located if—
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce;
and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s
authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information
is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic
record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD.—The term ‘‘electronic record’’ has
the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C.
7006).
(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH.—Seal information is ‘‘logically
associated with’’ an electronic record if the seal information
is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner
as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection,
either the record or the seal information.

Jennifer Brunner's concern is with electronic notarizations.

WaPo: In foreclosure controversy, problems run deeper than flawed paperwork

<...>

At the core of the fights over the legal standing of banks in foreclosure cases is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, based in Reston.

The company, known as MERS, was created more than a decade ago by the mortgage industry, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GMAC, and the Mortgage Bankers Association.

MERS allowed big financial firms to trade mortgages at lightning speed while largely bypassing local property laws throughout the country that required new forms and filing fees each time a loan changed hands, lawyers say.

The idea behind it was to build a centralized registry to track loans electronically as they were traded by big financial firms. Without this system, the business of creating massive securities made of thousands of mortgages would likely have never taken off. The company's role caused few objections until millions of homes began to fall into foreclosure.

In recent years, the company has faced numerous court challenges, including separate class-action lawsuits in California and Nevada - the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis. Lawyers in other states have also challenged the company's legal standing in court.

Kentucky lawyer Heather Boone McKeever has filed a state class-action suit and a federal civil racketeering class-action suit on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure, alleging that MERS and financial firms that did business with it have tried to foreclose on homes without holding proper titles.

<...>

The foreclosure crisis was fueled by illegal foreclosures. This bill does not change the fact that foreclosures have to be legal. Still, the question is does this bill increase the potential for illegal foreclosures or prevent homeowners from challenging the foreclosures: Bill Toughening Foreclosure Challenges Passes Quietly

In background interviews, several Senate staffers denied that it would have any adverse effect on the legal rights of homeowners contesting foreclosures, and said the law was intended only to remove an impediment to interstate commerce.

Think Progress: Obama Should Veto Bill That Makes It Harder For Foreclosure Victims To Challenge Banks

You can comment on pending legislation here

Wonder if Senator Leahy is going to issue a statement?

[suffragette]

160. Brunner also referred instances of notary abuse to the DOJ

http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2010/09/secretary-brunner-issues-directive-regarding-voting-rights-and-foreclosures-refers-specific-cases-of.html
REFERRAL OF CHASE HOME MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. TO FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:
Secretary Brunner, in two letters dated Aug. 11, 2010 and Sept. 1, 2010, referred matters of alleged notary abuse in thousands of home mortgage foreclosures by Chase Home Mortgage and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to U.S. District Attorney Steven Dettelbach in Cleveland. Citing two depositions, (one & two) of Chase employee Beth Cottrell, taken in Columbus in May of 2010, and a deposition of MERS Secretary and Treasurer, William Hultman taken in New Jersey in April of 2010.

These depositions contain sworn testimony that at Chase Home Mortgage, 18,000 documents per month are executed and notarized per month by eight people...

~~~

Currently, over half of all new residential mortgage loans in the U.S. are registered with MERS and recorded in county recording offices in MERS' name, reducing transparency, leaving consumers unable to determine who actually holds the note on their homes.

Secretary Brunner made the following statement on the situation:

"Mortgage foreclosure documents must be notarized according to the law. Requiring this is not an afterthought or an exercise of form over substance--the law must be followed when taking away someone's home, regardless of the circumstances.

For too long thousands of homes have been taken from consumers without proof that the foreclosing party actually has that right. Our courts must be cautious and require absolute adherence to the law. As the officer in Ohio who licenses notaries, I cannot stand idly by and watch financial institutions concoct a chain of title they never had by abusing the notary process.


It's pretty clear from the numbers that proper review of the paperwork before notarizing could not have been accomplished and the potential for abuse is high.

[joe black]

162. Time to call Thom Heartman.

On Friday he has brunch with Bernie Saunders. Let's see how Burnie he wiggles out of it.

[Bigmack]

165. Maybe it was one of those "The economy will collapse..."

things.

I'm certainly not in favor of this POS, but I am wondering why Leahy passed it. Is it possible that the whole banking/mortgage system would collapse without this kind of bullshit? Or at least the banksters convinced guys like Leahy, who is no dummy. I mean, if the banks can't foreclose, who owns the houses? The banks would have to write off $Trillions of losses. They might really die. Now, as much as that thought gives me a little chubby erection, maybe that really wouldn't be good for the economy.

Just saying.... I'm trying to find any other possible explanation why the bi-partisan screwing. Other than the obvious, of course.

[The Uncola]

172. Screw it...

... let 'em die. All they are doing is ripping us off, again and again and again and again...

And now our own party is helping them to do it...

...again and again and again and again...

We would be better off if they did die.

[Bigmack]

174. I said I "got excited" at the prospect of dead banks...

but we have to look at the whole picture. What would actually happen? There could be huge unintended consequences. I'm not enough of an economist to know.

I wanted Pres. Obama to nationalize the banks at the beginning of this mess.

[The Uncola]

182. I completely agree!

There should be NO privately held banks. None. They are nothing more than thieves in thousand dollar suits. If the banksters squeal? Put in front of a firing squad. I'm done playing nice with these freakin' criminals.

[w4rma]

183. Letting them "die" has to be better than being blackmailed and pillaged. (nt)

[Bigmack]

255. They don't need to die....

Conventional wisdom gives us two choices..... Bailout or Death

The third choice is to nationalize the banks and figure out a plan for people to stay in their houses, and for the nationalized banks to recover some of their money.

[truedelphi]

321. The economy is collapsed for most people - precisely

because of the manner in which the Bailouts occurred. It is most imprtant to remember that NO restrictions were handed down to the Banks receiving the Bailout Monies.

And apparetnly the Bailouts werenot handled in a truly sensible manner> I mena, why was it impossible for our Senators and Congress people to create legal restricitons such that the Bailout money was to be applied to Overall Business.

Instead, in almost all cases, here in the USA, the Trillions of dollars that the Big Banks received went directly to "easing" the toxic asset pain - and since that pain is extimeated to be somewhere in the half quadrillion dollar amount, no amount of money Congress takes from Main Street can offset the pain.

however the tiny twelve to fourteen trillion dolars of "pain relief" fofered by Bailuts to date hads crippled Main Stret.


Now let's look overseas, to see what could ahvebeen done...
In Ireland, the government officials are either more honest or much wiser than here in the USA.

The officals there also gave money to the Big Banks, but with the fabulous provision that since this money did go to them, the money had to be used in part to effectually secure the many mortgages about to go under.

This emans that for many of the dollars offered up to the Big Irish Banks, the property owners in Ireland see a return to THEM (Which is only fair - since it is the average tax payer and MAin Street merchant paying for all this Bailing out.) As a result, the home values in Ireland have not plummetted but are relatively stable. Nor have people there been foreclosed upon to the degree that foreclosures are happening here.

So we who are thinking about this have to ask ourselves - Why are we Americans being screwed so royally by our Governing Class?

[Citizen Worker]

167. I called just minutes ago and was on hold for over 4 minutes. When I gave the volunteer the bill

number she immediately provided me with the title. The White House is getting calls. Keep it up DUers and pass the word.

[Jefferson23]

173. DISGUSTING but telling. n/t

[EmeraldCityGrl]

176. How they voted. Here is why we will never know.

How they Voted: (So much for accountability)

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.

Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Absolute cowards!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/6/20110/0230

[KansDem]

177. Let's see, who was it who said, "Money talks and bullshit walks?"

It seems money talked, now we're seeing bullshit walking...

[heliarc]

181. Wrote the white house about this this morning

We should all do the same. I want a concerted effort from the administration to crack down on inappropriate lending practices and I want it yesterday.

[bvar22]

185. Hahahahaha!

We Reformed the Democratic Party
the Old Fashioned Way,

We BOUGHT IT !!!
Hahahahahahahahaha


BOHICA!
Hahahahahahahaha!


Now THIS is "Bi-Partisanship".
Hahahahahahaha!


"A Uniquely American Solution"
BWAHAHAHAHahahahaha!

[Waiting For Everyman]

188. >>>>> White House "Comment on Legislation" link

The official fax number is on the page too, on the right.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/comment-legislation?billname=H.R.%203808%20-%20Interstate%20Recognition%20of%20Notarizations%20Act%20of%202010

[bkozumplik]

190. itll get shelved

till the day after the election

[happyslug]

208. Then the Pocket item veto kicks in

Congress has adjoined so to run for re-election. This was passed at the last minute and sent to the White House. The President must either sign this bill OR it will be viewed as vetoed after ten days (If Congress was in session, then it would become law unless the President Vetoed the law, but with Congress adjoined there is no Congress for the President to return to bill to, this is referred to as the "Pocket Veto" i.e. the President does NOT have to do anything to kill this bill, but if he wants the bill he must sign it).

Furthermore this must be done within ten days (not including Sundays). The November election to to long away for him to wait to sign this bill, he either has to sign it within 10 days OR leave it die.

Article 1, Section 7 of the US Consitution:
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1

[bkozumplik]

210. ah, thanks for the clarification

good call, forgot we werent in session. Should be interesting to watch. Even if 'corporate' wanted it to pass, Theres no reason to sign it right before an election-- they could just resubmit it after the election... I bet the repub floated it just to make it an election issue.

[DainBramaged]

191. Passed the Senate quietly and quickly

I guess we now know the truth about our representatives.

[liberation]

200. No kidding...

... anything that may help the American people gets stalled for years, and then it has to be triple reviewed and passed by doubleplus cloture after it is watered down enough.

Corporate-friendly bills however, get passed in record time.


Ain't that a bitch....

[Dinger]

193. Just Wondering If Anyone Has the Balls To Defend This???

[bkozumplik]

211. LOL

um no. Not right now. They'd vote on it anonymously if they could.

[dionysus]

235. here's your crow;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

[Dinger]

289. Great News! Happy to Eat Some Crow!!!

Num num!

[Dinger]

196. Has Anyone Ever Switched Parties While In The WH?

Can this be done?

[truedelphi]

209. Apparently so. They just don't bother to openly confide in us voters

That they have done so.

"By your acts, ye shall know them," some wise guy said millenia ago.

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoapBox]

198. CONTACT, CONTACT, CONTACT the White House HERE....

and tell them that we "average" Americans are OUTRAGED!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[Daphne08]

199. I just called and had to wait several minutes. The operator was

familiar with the bill and obviously has received many calls about it.

Please call if you haven't done so.

[grasswire]

202. it should be possible to find the session on c-span

shouldn't it? Find the film of the voice vote? Get a look at the process that day?

I'll look at the archives. Maybe somebody else could try it too. I would just like to hear the Yays and Nays yelled out.

[Waiting For Everyman]

213. Reuters reports the WH is reviewing it now

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101007/pl_nm/us_usa_housing_whitehouse_5

...

"Congressional staffers said many lawmakers and White House officials initially didn't realize that the bill, which nominally deals only with notarizations, could have big impact on foreclosure cases."

_______


Other LBN thread on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4567576

[Dr.Phool]

230. Translation: Don't blame us, we didn't bother to read it.

Our esteemed Florida Legislature pulls that shit all the time. They even introduce blank bills, and let the lobbyists write what they want.

[grasswire]

232. the comments following that article are appalling

So much hatred. So many ignorant bigots.

[dpbrown]

216. Just when we need the Democrats to stand up against foreclosures, they give us this...

Self-destructive much?

I wouldn't mind so much the inherent self-loathing of the Democratic Party if they weren't the only path to protecting everything in the common good.

[dd2003]

217. obama vetos!!!

front page of wall street journal!

[Waiting For Everyman]

222. HuffPo too: Obama will NOT sign!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

There is a God.


Ok, you guys rock! (And everybody else everywhere, and Reuters.)

[w4rma]

223. Very very aweseome. (nt)

[CoffeeCat]

220. Wow the banks have a direct line into Congress...

The issue of improper foreclosure has recently gained traction on the side of consumers. Stories
have come out in the last couple of weeks regarding Bank of America employees who sit at a desk
and stamp thousands of foreclosures, one right after the other. They don't even look at the
documentation in front of them or examine what is happening. It's just "FORECLOSURE" stamped
in red, and the homeowner is never helped and the bank never makes an effort to work with the
homeowner.

So, American homeowners has learned that the banks have made themselves vulnerable. By rubber
stamping these foreclosures, many times when the banks lack the deeds and don't even know the
location of the original documents--banks are vulnerable. Maybe these foreclosures weren't
even legitimate.

Again, these stories have gained traction lately. So what do the banks do????

They call your Senators and Congress members and tell them that this legislation needs to be
passed STAT--making it "difficult for homeowners to challenge foreclosures."

Those rat bastard mafia thug banksters. They use our Congress like the mafia uses hit men.
Too bad the bullets are directed at the American people.

If the President signs----it is undoubtedly a sign that President Obama is on the side of the corporate
cabal that is using our Congress as a plaything. If the President can sign away on these grave
injustices happening in our system--then I will be horrendously disappointed at the President's
blatant disregard for the American people and his kow towing to the corrupt and dirty banksters.

I guess we shall see.

[ProudDad]

226. Gee, I'm sure glad we have all those democrat liberals in the W.H. and Congress

Here is a chart showing the top 10 U.S. Senate Candidates receiving the most reportable out-of-state campaign contributions during the 2010 election cycle.

Candidate Party % in-state % out-of-state
Leahy, Patrick D 12.8 87.2
Crapo, Mike R 17.3 82.7
Bender, Jim R 19.8 80.2
Reid, Harry D 23.1 76.9
Binnie, William R 25.2 74.8
Angle, Sharron R 25.8 74.2
Paul, Rand R 31.1 68.9
McCain, John R 31.5 68.5
Thune, John R 31.5 68.5
Grassley, Chuck R 32.1 67.9

VERMONT: SPECIAL INTEREST HAVEN OR BASTION OF SMALL CONTRIBUTORS?

For the 2010 election cycle, Leahy has received 87 percent of donations of more than $200 from out-of-state sources, which Britton said signals a disconnect with the state he represents.

“Mr. Leahy is more in touch with K Street than Vermont,” Britton said, referencing campaign contributions to Leahy from Washington. “It’s very frustrating.”

Leahy has raised more than $4.4 million this election cycle. His top five zip codes in terms of political donations more than $200 are Beverly Hills, Calif., three separate zip codes in Washington, D.C., and a zip code in New York City.

-------------------------------

Leahy's top contributors (1989-2010)
=====================================
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,407,682
TV/Movies/Music corps 875,000
Lobbyists 575,000
Computers/Internet 405,000
Securities & Investment 232,000 (Wall St. -- hell, they own a piece of everybody)

Top Funders:
Time Warner
Walt Disney
Girardi & Keese
Technet
Law Offices of Peter G Angelos
Vivendi (privatized water!)
DLA Piper
Micro$oft
G.E.
Viacom
General Dynamics (WAR)
Patton Boggs LLP
Baron & Budd
Comcast
Joseph E Seagram (donation of booze?)
etc, etc, etc.

He's another tool of the corporations...

What more can you expect from a corrupt system!?!?!?!?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009918&type=I

[dionysus]

234. here's your crow;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

[ProudDad]

241. Not really...

In case you haven't noticed, there's an election on.

Since this latest gift to Corporate Amerika was uncovered (and how many are NEVER uncovered, eh?)...

They're covering their asses...

Come back to me after they've changed some of the punctuation and re-passed and signed this shit (after the election)...

[dionysus]

233. here's your crow;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

[ProudDad]

242. Not really...

In case you haven't noticed, there's an election on.

Since this latest gift to Korporate Amerika was uncovered (and how many are NEVER uncovered, eh?)...

They're covering their asses...

Come back to me after they've changed some of the punctuation and re-passed and signed this shit (after the election)...

[ClarkUSA]

244. And you know this how? Do you have any evidence for your purely speculative rhetoric?

:eyes:

[ProudDad]

247. The experience of watching these a**holes for the last 50 years

It's in their DNA...

[ClarkUSA]

290. In other words, you got nuthin'.

[onehandle]

238. Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4567770

[katty]

240. Obama WON'T sign this - Great News

[JNelson6563]

245. So many to point & laugh at in this thread!

Where to begin??

Thanks for posting the good news. :toast:

[GoCubsGo]

250. Awwww, c'mon

What would this place be like without all of the hysterical hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over pure speculation?

[FrenchieCat]

261. A sane place one could rely on, considering that the alternative is a media

that shits all over Democrats 24/7?

Just Saying! :shrug:

[GoCubsGo]

262. Exactly!

[JNelson6563]

272. My guess would be

less profitable? ;-)

[Waiting For Everyman]

253. Very great news!

I'm so glad for everybody here who called and emailed all morning. And for Reuters, the only ones covering it at first.

And Better Today, who posted it several times last night before anybody noticed.

You guys :yourock: and so does the Prez on this one, he did the right thing.

[ProudDad]

249. Tired of watching the Corporate States of America sell you out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9274387

[bos1]

295. I'm not TIRED of OBAMA doing the RIGHT THING. No enthusiasm gap HERE

[creon]

256. bad bill

It looks like a bad bill to me.

If so, the president should veto the bill.

[Octafish]

257. ''The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor...''

... Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

That is serious. Majorities in Congress thinks it's cool for Banksters to break the law, even when it means losing our homes. And even when Democrats control both chambers, they still have the nerve to send it to the White House for the Democratic president's signature. What's really frightening is they thought he would consider signing it and nobody would notice.

[lovuian]

260. This is really the plan confiscating US citizens property

by the banks on the cheap

Fraudsters and now Obama may allow them to steal even more
let us hope he does not

this could be the last straw with voters

[Mosaic]

263. Obama To Veto ‘Robo-Foreclosure’ Bill

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/07/obama-vetos-banks/

[Roy Rolling]

265. Curious Timing

Obama will pocket that bill and it will not be signed. But what lucky timing for fraudulent foreclosure scumbags that the Senate of the United States would pass a bill that makes it easier for them to seize houses with phony signatures and paperwork. Did I say "lucky timing"? I meant "legislation bought and paid for by industry insiders and lobbyists".

[BEZERKO]

267. Reminds me of a line in Casablanca

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[treestar]

271. Calm down

this is utterly ridiculous. If the document was notarized, it was notarized. How many people get out of a foreclosure just because they were able to prove the document wasn't really notarized and that they did not sign it?

Are people here saying there is a right to just technically get out of paying a mortgage by saying it was notarized in another state, when it was indeed notarized in the other state? Apparently so. This is silly.

an improper foreclosure would be one where the person had in fact made the payments. Not one where they just got lucky that the notarization was done in a different state (presumably for their own convenience).

What bullshit.

[hedgehog]

276. Whether or not the bill itself would change anything, the perception that it

favors the banks means that if Obama blocks it, it's a big win for our side.

[Hoyt]

288. I agree with you. But, the timing -- with people losing their homes -- was awful.

Heck, some poor old 80 year old widow might not be able to sell her house to get the money needed to move to an assisted living facility if interstate commerce goes to hell.

Again, the timing was bad and Congress ought to be looking at real ways to help people who need some help saving their homes. The damn banks ought to think about ways to help too.

I also applaud attorneys helping people save their home -- or forestall foreclosure awhile -- but not resorting to mickey-mouse means to do it.

[pa28]

297. Maybe you can convince the W.H.

Apparently Obama was more disturbed by this bill than you are. Be sure to close by telling him his concerns are just bullshit.

[Nothing Without Hope]

279. The quiet passage is very revealing of who actually owns the legislature

Corporate cash. Augmented in some cases by blackmail, it would appear. The corruption is pervasive and I can't see it going away any time soon.

Edited to add: Actually, not just corporate cash. Some legislators are paid off by foreign governments. For example, the Turkish connections such as those of Dennis Hastert revealed by Sibel Edmonds. I'd be very surprised if this sort of bribery source were not fairly pervasive too.

[JohnWxy]

280. Recommended!!

[backscatter712]

293. VETOED!!!

Stop your hand wringing, Obama has vetoed this piece of shit!

:party: :toast: :bounce: :beer:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808

[HughMoran]

308. lol - yep

Can't believe this thread is a top of GP - looks kinda silly now.

[Name removed]

317. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

326. It kind of serves as an example of breathless threads.

Might be fun to kick it around for a few weeks.