Posted by BobRogers_FL on 10/12/06 8:03am
Msg #151922

Legal Fund

Let's get a showing of hands on how many of you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. How many are willing to contribute to a legal fund to take on the NNA. You can sure count me in. Of course, we would have to find one of our peers who is a competent attorney willing to take this on, but there have been many who have posted as being attorney's. Now is the time to step up. Let's hear what you have to say.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 10/12/06 8:16am
Msg #151923

Should it get that far, I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Thing is, I don't think it will go that far.
The NNA and their legal team is well aware of antitrust, and I doubt if they will pusue to "we are the only BGC company" any longer.
I think it would be safe to say we could find a federa lawyer willing to take this on a contingent basis.
Oh, yeah: this is only my OPINION. I have no facts to back my opinion.

Reply by hcampersFL on 10/12/06 8:23am
Msg #151924

I'm in! I will put my money where my mouth is.
Beverly

Reply by Jersey_Boy on 10/12/06 8:29am
Msg #151925

Don't get me wrong, cause I absolutely DESPISE the NNA.... BUT I feel that this will go absolutely nowhere fast. I'll be content keeping my money where my wallet is for now.

Reply by PA_Notary_II on 10/12/06 9:27am
Msg #151931

Re: Legal Fund...I'm in... n/m

Reply by NCLisa on 10/12/06 9:42am
Msg #151936

I think this is a little larger than one of the attorney's on this board can handle. The NNA has a lot of money behind them. I would think it best to hire a large firm that specializes in class action law suits, and have them do it on contigency.

Reply by Becca_FL on 10/12/06 10:17am
Msg #151944

I would be all for joining with other National Notary Groups to fight King Kong. I don't think there’s much we can do on an individual basis other than write our Congress and Senate representatives and ask that the matter be looked into on a National level.

Reply by Genkichan on 10/12/06 10:51am
Msg #151951

The bottom line is...

We really won't have a case until and unless those major TC's actually, specifically state that they *require* the use of NNA's resources for the BGC. They can *require* a BGC in general as a condition to being one of their ICs, but they have an obligation to free enterprise to provide more than one avenue for meeting such a requirement. Those TCs will have to come forward and state exactly what their BGC requirements are, and allow for various ways for us to meet that requirement. If they *only* accept the NNA's method, then we have a case.

Problem is, we all know very well that major TCs are not going to be stupid enough to require a single source. We also know that NNA's language on its website regarding this issue is in a very *grey* area. They say what major TCs are going to be requiring, and they provide a method for meeting the need. No where, however, does it say it's the only way to meet the need. It's just very talented semantics and propaganda aimed at convincing a bunch of people to pay up now, or be fearful of no business later.

It is up to us as individuals to seek clarification from these major TCs on what their intentions and requirements are going to be, and how we can go about meeting them, other than through the NNA. Now, if any of us can get our hands on written communication from any of the TCs on how they plan to ask us to meet their BGC needs, we might actually have something to work with. Until then, all we have is a bunch of NNA propaganda.

I'm looking forward to seeing if any of us get documentation from either a TC or a SS that specifically state that they require us to use NNA's resources to meet their needs. Now THAT would really stir the pot.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 10/12/06 11:21am
Msg #151964

As I said before

We need to address it at the level we get the commission. I called my SOS today and asked about the back ground check they do here. As I suspected they look you up on the state circuit court site. That is it.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for a criminal back ground check that covers the State, federal and terrosist requirements when renewing my commission with the state. Then anyone contacting me for notorial services of any kind would know that I meet the requirements of any issue, not just mortgage industry and real estate transaction, requiring the confidentiality issues.
We have a third party issue with our information as well. If the back ground check includes financial information about me, what is the BGC enitity going to do with that? Would they be handing that out to anyone in the banking/TC industry that asks for it assuming its for reassurance I am not a criminal? Lists of organizations members are sold all the time. All they need is a name. There is a an individual that handles confidential financial information.
I would rather have the State do the criminal check and if they need my financial info they need to tell me why it pertains to my duty as a notary.

Reply by John_NorCal on 10/12/06 11:49am
Msg #151971

Re: As I said before

I guess that is the difference between states. California does a back ground check statewide as well as the FBI database. I agree with you in that their should be some consistency between states and there is no need for credit information to be given out. After all what does that have to do with signings? It isn't as if we have possesion of the borrowers money.

Reply by jlissem on 10/12/06 12:27pm
Msg #151982

Re: As I said before

What do driver licenses have to do with being a signing agent. With all the counterfeit drivers licenses around, do they think I would give them a copy of my driver's license? Can't a criminal bgc be done without a dl number?

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 10/12/06 12:26pm
Msg #151981

I'm in

Reply by MistarellaFL on 10/12/06 2:18pm
Msg #152045

OK, Bob, we're up to $100-I vote for contingency, lol n/m

Reply by BobRogers_FL on 10/12/06 4:00pm
Msg #152081

Re: OK, Bob, we're up to $100-I vote for contingency, lol

Well, I guess it's pretty obvious that the NNA has nothing to fear from us!

Reply by Charm_AL on 10/12/06 4:10pm
Msg #152087

IMO...there's no reason to try to take on the NNA - it's all still up in the air. Many are not signing up for this and others are challenging the validity of it. Until I personally lose a company over this hoopla, I don't feel a direct NNA threat to my business.
Now, if it does become a real issue, I'm in.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/12/06 4:49pm
Msg #152093

Re: Legal Fund - I am in, Bob.

I posted something similar to this...I suggested a simple letter from a lawyer explaining we want choices aside from the NNA. I'd like to see a copy of it go to the big guys listed on NNA website.

All I want is a choice other than the NNA. I should have the right to run my business, work and not contribute to an organization I do not personally like or want to do business with.

I won't do it.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/12/06 8:53pm
Msg #152142

I'd be in but I am in CA! n/m