Posted by Heritage Closing Agency of Kentucky Inc. on 1/1/06 1:39pm
Msg #85510

Speedy Closing Stay away!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay away from speedy closing unless you can work for free will not pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply by SSEmobile on 1/1/06 2:30pm
Msg #85513

>I need notaies in Indiana an Ohio please fax info to 859 854 3191
>or email [e-mail address]

>Stay away from speedy closing unless you can work for free
>will not pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting posts today!

Now, I'm not in your state, but is this by any chance a marketing measure on your part??

This year I believe it's possible were going to see several signing companies go out of business, and a like number of those who resort to unscrupulous methods of trying to keep alive because of the change in the industry in general, but I had not anticipated this kind of obvious action to show up here so soon ..........

Uh ......... good luck with that train of thought Heritage, I hope it works out well for you, really!

Reply by Kimberly_IN on 1/1/06 4:34pm
Msg #85515

thanks for the witty comeback attempt but Heritage is a top notch company to work for. No need to bash them. What they say about Speedy is true. They are just warning people like everybody else does on here.

Reply by Beth/MD on 1/1/06 5:14pm
Msg #85519

I've heard many bad things about Speedy Closings and nothing bad about Heritage. So I don't see a need for SSE's comments. Have a problem with Heritage?

Reply by Loretta Reed on 1/1/06 8:47pm
Msg #85530

Do you have an interest in Speedy Closings, SSE? If the truth hurts, then oh well.
If a SS does not pay then that is what they get, a bad name.

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/2/06 12:08am
Msg #85555

I wanna know why a signing service is doing sigings for another signing service in the first place. That seems odd to me.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 1/2/06 12:15am
Msg #85557

Yep, well, go figure with NM_CO and all those types (SA's who are also SS).

Seems way wierd to me too, but I'm starting to accept anything lately.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 1/2/06 12:31am
Msg #85563

Run me out of town on a rail, but Speedy paid me in 30 about four months ago. Not condoning, just my experience. (My bad in accepting the job in the first place).

Reply by Beth/MD on 1/2/06 7:56am
Msg #85582

I did one loan for them about a year ago. I figured everyone deserves a chance. It wasn't a good experience. But that's not really why I posted. I felt that SSEs attack was just way out of left field, especially when there are other members of this board who claim to be a SS and do exactly the same shopping. NM_CO does it so regularly that you have to wonder....

Reply by SSEmobile on 1/2/06 10:24am
Msg #85591

Re:to ALL of you SILLY internet forum readers .......

I started reading this forum three months ago.

I do not intend to dive back into past posts trying to see what EVERYONE has written about EVERYONE else, ever. Things commonly don't remain the same but are commonly mistaken when they are posted on the no-holds-barred old-west frontier of internet forums.

The way you folks bash each other without regard for possible liability is common on internet forums, but it does NOT mean it is right or without legal liability. People have been brought before a judge for such things, this group has no magic pass on the issue.

My comment to Heritage, even though I see they are commonly well thought of in the industry (and NOT from here, which I consider a low source) was the WAY their comments were posted. One post seeking more notaries in their area followed immediately by another post BASHING their competition.

Maybe it means nothing to you, but "the competition" in this case has legal rights they could pursue, and possibly WIN against that bashing, regardless of their paying habits.

There is a difference in the next two paragraphs :

I did a signing job for Clearlake Signing Service two months ago and still haven't been paid, have any others here had the same experience?
----------------------------------------------
Clearlake Signing Service is a SLUG when it comes to paying, STAY AWAY!!!!

Anyone see a difference?

(I hope there is no Clearlake Signing Service, and IF there is my comment was fictional and NOT pointed at your business personally)

As for anyone's comment about ME personally, feel free to say what you will in this internet forum ............ but be aware, if I ever find an instance where unfair bashing causes a LOSS in my business, you WILL learn why you should refrain from bashing for bashing's sake, consider that a promise!

You'll note I didn't BASH Heritage for the obvious dig here, I simply asked a question. YOU folks determined what my post meant to you. And again you're so far off base in your assumptions you miss the entire point.

As usual, you couldn't be further from the point, no matter what clever little missives you come up with for THIS reply.

It is still the computer keyboard work of folks who seem to take rather large stabs at everyone they can from the safety of their internet distance.

Frankly, I found myself coming to this site more for humor than learning after the first few weeks of looking in, the learning is long past in this combative internet site. It's become just another place people come complain, point fingers and post thoughts that anywhere else could only be important to them.

And yes, I include this post as one of them .......... <grin>

Reply by Kimberly_IN on 1/2/06 10:58am
Msg #85595

Re: Re:to ALL of you SILLY internet forum readers .......

"........post thoughts that anywhere else could only be important to them."

the pot calling the kettle black, maybe

Reply by Loretta Reed on 1/2/06 11:15am
Msg #85599

Re: Re:to ALL of you SILLY internet forum readers .......

I think if anyone loses business because someone said something that is TRUE, they deserve what they get. You cannot win a liablity suit for something that is true, you can only win if what someone says about you is proven incorrect. The BBB could probably be part of a suit if someone sued them for telling a potential client that a company had claims against them for not paying their bills. Doesn't sound right.
I do agree that some people could use a little more etiquette when posting about a "SLUG" that is not paying their notaries. Hey, can we sue signing companies that use the "do not use" list of notaries?

Reply by Loretta Reed on 1/2/06 11:19am
Msg #85600

Re: Re:to ALL of you SILLY internet forum readers .......

FYI.....
I do not worry about what people say about me, when I get a call from a title company that finds my name on this site, they usually comment, I don't have to say a word, about my 6'2 football player / ultimate fighter husband and I hardly ever have a problem getting paid. It may be slow but I still get the check. Sometimes you don't have to say a word to make a point.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/2/06 11:25am
Msg #85604

Re: Re:to ALL of you SILLY internet forum readers ...SSE:

***I did a signing job for Clearlake Signing Service two months ago and still haven't been paid, have any others here had the same experience?
----------------------------------------------
Clearlake Signing Service is a SLUG when it comes to paying, STAY AWAY!!!!

Anyone see a difference? ***
===================================================

"Yes. There is a large difference. Rules I try to follow:

-Only write and/or post factual, provable information.
-If something is only my policy or my own opinion, state it as my own policy or my own opinion.
-Where needed, post a disclaimer.



DISCLAIMER: Personal opinion only!!!"

Reply by Beth/MD on 1/2/06 11:41am
Msg #85607

Re: Reply to SSE...

It strikes me that you are nothing more than one of those trolls that will post some inflamatory or "off" comment just to see a reaction from others. If this is the type of person you are than, IMHO, you are in the same ranks as those others are trying to remove.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 1/2/06 11:49am
Msg #85609

Slightly OT and border on HiJacking this thread ....

You said:

"The way you folks bash each other without regard for possible liability is common on internet forums, but it does NOT mean it is right or without legal liability. People have been brought before a judge for such things, this group has no magic pass on the issue."

I would like to see where a user has been accused, charged, tired and convicted of libel or slander simply by posting on public forums on the internet. This is not to say that there many not be a case where someone has been so convicted for these acts and their posts to public forums were evidentiary to that conviction, but can someone cite a case on the postings alone?

I suggest anyone interested to read the text of 47 USC 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and some of the case findings as a result.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 1/2/06 11:55am
Msg #85610

Re: Slightly OT and border on HiJacking this thread ....

Thank you Paul, you beat me to it. My post wouldn't have had references to a governing agency however because I didn't know who governs internet communications.

I just found the sentence a bit strong and joins the ranks of those "warning" us to watch our words..."you never know who's reading" "you could be sued for libel" ad infinitum.

Big Brother is not related to me and he's not my brother.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/2/06 12:10pm
Msg #85614

Re: Slightly OT and border on HiJacking this thread ....

Paul -

I took this route to see what you meant:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm

Now I know little more except why my cousin is finishing up his law degree work in New York on this kind of law. Good thing he had some "prep" work getting a degree from Rice...and then one from Harvard. LOL. (I have lost track. I think he really just likes school, actually.) This is deep stuff.

What I first "assume" from reading the text of 47 USC 230...1996 is that the internet is supposed to be a place where diverse opinions should flourish. The cases started "swimming" around and I have missed the point of them.

Alas, it is over my pretty head...what's the bottom line?

Email me if you prefer.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 1/2/06 12:23pm
Msg #85618

Bottom Line ....

Well, this section of the US Code specifically protects the "information content provider" from any actions of their users. If one follows some of the more prominent cases (especially those involving AOL and AOL users), the courts ruled in favor of AOL as not being responsible for the conduct of their users. The striking lack of further suits (at least being referenced in the cases I researched), from the plaintiff to the "individual user" (and not limited to the "information content publisher"), leads me to believe that the courts may be reluctant to pursue defamation claims against individual users simply based on their posts on the internet.

This is not to say that there may not be one or two or many. Just that my limited research (and not having a full law library and staff at my disposal) has not found any such cases.

Reply by Beth/MD on 1/2/06 12:26pm
Msg #85619

Re: Bottom Line ....Paul

I look at it as I have the right to say "In my opinion"... is that oversimplifying?

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/2/06 12:35pm
Msg #85621

Re: Bottom Line ....Good Point - Beth n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/2/06 12:34pm
Msg #85620

Re: Bottom Line ....thanks, Paul...

**the courts may be reluctant to pursue defamation claims against individual users simply based on their posts on the internet.**

Thanks, Paul. I agree that is what the courts do seem to be saying. I just wanted to be sure.

For a flock of notaries like the ones of us chirping and peeping around on notary boards, I would think it is still worthwhile to be careful to state only factual information when we log complaints about companies or notaries.

I personally think that objectively stated facts are so much more compelling than the subjective smear with a dirty brush.

Reply by Beth/MD on 1/2/06 12:39pm
Msg #85623

Re: Bottom Line ....Brenda's right

>>>I would think it is still worthwhile to be careful to state only factual information when we log complaints about companies or notaries.<<<

If I post something about a company's non payment or slow payment. It's my personal experience doing the talking.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 1/2/06 12:41pm
Msg #85624

Re: Bottom Line .... (cont'd)

Here's a case that makes for some great reading (if you're into that sort of thing) ...

Teen-ager Ian Lake of Milford, Utah, claimed in vulgar, obscenity-filled Internet postings that certain girls in his class were "sluts," that one school official was "the town drunk" and that certain faculty members were incompetent. Police arrested him on charges of criminal libel. Misdemeanor defamation of character charges against the former high school student were dropped two years later, ending the case that drew national attention and resulted in the overturning of Utah's criminal-libel law.

"Any freedom can be abused and will be," says Harvard Law School professor John Zittrain. "There is more of everything on the Internet. More bad speech, more good speech, more persons with no special expertise writing on topics they know nothing about. But crafting laws that rule out abuse while allowing freedom is hard."

David Post, a professor at Temple University Law School, concurs. "We're now seeing a complicated social phenomenon of some significance," he says. "There are differences between the Internet and other media, and we are now discovering what those differences are. The courts are wrestling with this slowly. I can't say the courts recognize the differences yet."

Reply by LilyMD on 1/2/06 12:46pm
Msg #85625

Re: Back to original issue, SSEmobile

Frankly, I find your posts seem to always border on inflamatory [sp]. It seems that when I did a search, I found several of your posts to be what I'd consider about as welcome as any other trouble maker. Perhaps you'll want to sue me for my personal opinion, but I'll risk it.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 1/2/06 12:51pm
Msg #85626

Are you directing this at me?

Since you responded to my post, is this directed at me or should this relate back to the original (top of the list) post?

Reply by LilyMD on 1/2/06 12:57pm
Msg #85627

Re: Are you directing this at me? NO, sorry

It was meant to be attached further up the line. Sorry.

Reply by LilyMD on 1/2/06 12:59pm
Msg #85628

Re: Back to original issue, SSEmobile

My previous post is definitely meant as a response to SSE and his/her issues. Sorry PAW.

Reply by SSEmobile on 1/2/06 1:04pm
Msg #85634

Re: Bottom Line ....

47 USC 230 or not, perhaps Matt Drudge was not MADE to post a retraction, then. I suppose. in a famous case involving AOL .......

NOT off topic Paul, thanks for adding that to this thread.

Bottom line, you may protect Notary Rotary using 47 USC 230, but that hardly excuses the individual user. Whether it has ever been pursued is beside the point of what I've posted in this thread.

Let me say it another way.

Many folks have been posting to ask for a halt to bashings, in favor of more information and less OT posts.

Whatever y'all made of my post to Heritage, it was intended to be semi humorous comment to HOW the two posts were made, in line with comments about bashing in general.

I always get a smile from folks who feel safe and secure behind their computer keyboards saying things they would NEVER say in person, at least not in the way it is said here.

I took some time to look back at the beginnings of this forum while you all took such offense at my personal opinion on the subject.

This site, while still maintaining pretty good info in general thanks to experts like some of those here, has followed the way of nearly all internet forums. It is degraded by needless bashing, OT threads from those who apparently have no where else to take part in a community, and MUCH less on topic posts or discussions.

I'm siding with those against bashing, and ask you all to go back a read my initial post in this thread again .......... did I BASH them? Or did I simply comment on what the intentions appeared to be with those two posts (or rather how naked the intentions were) without bashing?

Paul, great pulls from other internet content. Excellent summaries as well.

Sure people, you can assume you have the right to say anything here, but does it make you RIGHT to do it?

Better yet, does it ADD to this site, or detract from it?

My first comment ion this thread was made with a smile, mostly because I read Heritage's two posts with the eye of somebody who has NOT had years of dealing with them or this forum, but as somebody who found it humorous to see those two posts right together.

It always amazes me how some seemingly humorless people can be when they see a chance to bash and get "away" with it.

I believe you all have more humor in your life than that ....... Is it just Monday that has you so ready to bash???

Sorry for the detraction folks, I had no idea a simple comment would offend you, or that the comment was "against" one of your favorite clients. It was hardly worth so much effort to respond as this thread has taken.

But it does kinda sum up what some folk's intensions are here ........ try to lighten up some!

Reply by PhillyCloser on 3/30/07 1:45pm
Msg #182912

If you having problems with no or slow payment by Speedy Closings in NJ. And the title company was Fiserv, you can call Kathy Jud at 1-800-842-8423. She is with Fiserv's vendor management department and let her know your situation.