Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (282168)	10/8/2010 8:32:22 PM
From: James Hutton	Respond to of 306849

"Warren said the Bank of America move Friday may give some delinquent borrowers time, but won't let anyone off the hook completely. "That just means that people who are in the process will probably stay in the process until they're absolutely certain that all of their procedures and paperwork are in order,'' Warren said." IMHO, although this may be correct, this issue goes WAY beyond the closures of the foreclosures. It's a test of the judicial to show that it has not been captured by the bankers as the executive and legislative branches have. I'm glad to see some of the AGs are taking the positions they are taking (of course it doesn't hurt that it's October and it's a no lose political proposition). The Ohio Supreme Court has some good language in this opinion about the importance the courts (at least in Ohio) place on proper notarization. And no, the timing of getting HR 3808 to O's desk was no coincidence. They'd just search out the jurisdication with the most lenient rules on notarization (or change the laws where they do the notarization) and sign them there and force courts in other jurisdictions to accept them. ¶ 14} Respondent owed his clients, the public, and the judicial system a duty to conscientiously observe his duties as a notary public. As we said in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93-94, 689 N.E.2d 549, authenticating a document through notarization is not a trifle, and the failure to do so properly is a fraud on anyone who later relies on the document. Respondent owed an equally important duty to his clients, the public, and the judicial system to ensure the authenticity of documents executed at this direction. Respondent concedes that he violated these duties knowingly. {¶ 15} When a lawyer notarizes a signature knowing that it is forged, and especially when the lawyer commits the forgery, an actual suspension is warranted. Thus, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003- Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 429, we suspended a lawyer for one year, staying only six January Term, 2008 5 months of the suspension, because the lawyer had advised the client to forge his senile grandmother’s name on a power of attorney so that he could sell her property to pay her living expenses without pursuing a guardianship. The lawyer then notarized the power of attorney, backdated it to a time before the grandmother’s incapacitation, and instructed his secretary to witness the forged signature supremecourt.ohio.gov Wow - a Phillie just got beaned. That hurts.