Skip to main content

View Diary: Who Owns Ohio's Homes? (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Funky notarization of funky affidavits is not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kurt from CMH

    'skirting legality', its damned illegal.

    The ones who swore that they had examined the actual documents and the documents said X were lying because they conceded they had not in fact examined what they swore they did, and therefore have no basis for swearing as to what the documents said, or whether they were properly signed and in good order,  and then the notary who is supposed to look the signer of the affidavit in the eye and swear him in and watch him sign, didn't do that, and notarized documents by the pile some time later not while in the presence of the signer. Such bogus affidavits are not accepted as evidence of anything in properly run courts, and a business pattern of using them in court is fraud on the court. Using one is fraud on the court. It's not a pro forma matter at all.

    •  On top of that there's substantive evidence (0+ / 0-)

      That most of these so-called affadavits are outright lies from beginning to end.  It's not just the signature and the notarization, the "facts" alleged aren't true either, but were made up to cover for gross negligence by bankers in previous years.  100% Fraud.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:27:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site