Posted by MeMeinCA on 12/5/06 1:06pm
Msg #163979

bgc

In the last two days I have lost two jobs to not having the background check. They both said it had to be through the NNA. They both said their names so slurred I couldn't tell who they were. Once I asked if the background check had to be had to be through the NNA and they said yes, they would not repeat their company name.

Reply by LkArrowhd/CA on 12/5/06 1:17pm
Msg #163985

Re: bgc-That in itself is interesting......might be someone

playing a game.......

Reply by John_NorCal on 12/5/06 1:35pm
Msg #163990

Anyone who would give you that story without properly identifying themselves, etc has to be some kind of shill. Personally I would put it past the NNA to be behind somehting like that.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/5/06 5:10pm
Msg #164053

** "Anyone who would give you that story without properly identifying themselves, etc has to be some kind of shill. Personally I would put it past the NNA to be behind somehting like that." **

I love a good conspiracy theory - I have this mental image of a huge room at NNA headquarters where they have a bank of phones staffed by eager, willing volunteers. There's a bingo cage full of the names and numbers of "non-compliant" notaries in the center of the room. The cage spins, they pick out a name, and someone on the phone bank starts dialing...

You're suggesting that the NNA - or someone else - would call random notaries and harass them about not having a bgc? And doing this would make sense because...?

Reply by John_NorCal on 12/5/06 5:16pm
Msg #164055

Only because I don't trust the "barstards"

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/5/06 7:33pm
Msg #164120

** Only because I don't trust the "barstards" **

OK - turn it around: what if someone from the NNA was making accusations against you "only because we don't trust the barstard" - how would you feel, and how would you defend yourself?

I'm not here to defend the NNA, but let's make sure there is actually a problem before we start blaming them for causing it...

Reply by John_NorCal on 12/5/06 8:29pm
Msg #164140

Mike,
I really don't have any sympathy for the NNA. Perhaps my effort at being facetious has been lost on you. Those people have been on this site, and have taken someone to task to the point that an individuals post was retracted. No, I don't really believe that they have a back office with black ops individuals waiting to call signing agents with false information. What I resent is their tactics on this whole back ground check. As to the original post on this thread, someone is obviously playing games. The NNA is the natural whipping post in my opinion.
Gotta go now, I think I'm being observed by someone in a black helicopter that is hovering outside of my door.
p.s. JK!

Reply by Blueink_CA on 12/5/06 10:24pm
Msg #164164

LOL John, I love the black heli comment. Even though I've not succumbed to the mandatory BC that the NNA says I must have to succeed, I've been hired by two of the named "must be background checked" companies within the last two days. The NNA is really fishing here and hoping to gather dollars from the naive.

Reply by Blueink_CA on 12/5/06 10:41pm
Msg #164168

And just in case the NNA attornies are hovering...this is just my opinion...

Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/06 4:26pm
Msg #164040

Probably somebody stirring up the already-muddy waters! n/m

Reply by goodgirl on 12/6/06 11:59pm
Msg #164458

Re: Probably somebody stirring up the already-muddy waters!

NNA Attorneys need to look a little further than GLBA. They need to read discussion of monopolies within the Clayton Antitrust Act. Hope the NNA weasles are onboard!