Posted by Korey Humphreys on 6/16/07 9:40am
Msg #195474

UPDATE: RE: The fraud post....

I went to the clerk-magistrates office yesterday and explained to her what the situation was. She advised me to call the police department. So, needless to say, I did just that.

The police listened to what I had to say and requested a statement from me in writing (naturally). They're not attorneys, however, they think, based on what I told them, that I did nothing wrong. They contacted Fitchburg Police and learned that the lady was definitely deceased and she did not have any daughters with the same name. Therefore, most likely identity theft and forgery had been committed.

I spoke with my attorney and advised her of the situation. She went through the statement I gave to the police and reassured me that I have nothing to worry about. I was in full compliance with Executive Order 455 (04-04) regarding the use of a credible witness. As someone pointed out the other day, I acted in good faith.

As far as civil liability goes, I’m in the clear. In this type of case the only person who would have standing to sue would have been the real person whose identity was stolen. Unfortunately she is deceased. Regardless of the latter, if a notary public acts in good faith and abides by the law, we have public official immunity. It is not our job to say, “hey, because I’m notarizing this signature, I guarantee you everything written therein is 100% accurate!”

The police are going to investigate this matter further and will get back to me. They said I did the right thing in coming forward.

Since I filed my statement with my commissioning authority, it is now a matter of public record, therefore, if you’re interested, feel free to read my statement found here:

http://www.ips-notary.com/download/affidavit(fraud).pdf

Thank you very much for your advice. My mind went into ‘panic mode’ and I needed your advice to think rationally.

Have a great day!

Reply by MistarellaFL on 6/16/07 9:43am
Msg #195475

Good for you Korey. Now you can relax about it.

Reply by spnotaryplus on 6/16/07 10:10am
Msg #195476

Now that is good news. That's one for the good guy's trying to do the right thing.

Reply by DebbieT on 6/16/07 11:18am
Msg #195480

I hope now that the two others have to pay for what they did to you and the deceased. What goes around comes around. Good for you.

Reply by Michelle_KY on 6/16/07 11:38am
Msg #195484

Thanks for the update! (I was thinking about this story when I woke up this morning.)

I love it when criminals run into brick walls! It's too bad about your "friend", but with friends like that, who needs enemies, right?

Good job!

Reply by Julie/MI on 6/16/07 12:35pm
Msg #195487

What about your mutual friend? NM

l

Reply by LJ on 6/16/07 12:59pm
Msg #195489

Re: What about your mutual friend? NM

Great Job. We're all proud of you.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 6/16/07 1:00pm
Msg #195490

Re: What about your mutual friend? NM

The police asked me if she had to be placed under oath to vouch for her friends identity. I told them that was/is the normal routine and she did in fact swear that her friend was who she claimed to be.

I think after the investigation is done she will be charged with perjury. I don't feel bad because she really put my neck on the line.

Reply by FLdocrunner on 6/16/07 1:22pm
Msg #195492

Re: What about your mutual friend? NM

Korey, I am sorry your job has cost you a friendship. On the bright side your friends here all advised you well. You have made us all proud. Way to go!

Reply by Ndwa on 6/16/07 3:29pm
Msg #195499

K, your aff is incomplete...

I don't see the venue of notarization.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 6/16/07 4:01pm
Msg #195501

LOL I never even noticed that....

That notary had an excellent idea though.

She used the big sized mailing address labels and typed out the certificates on them. This way here, once she has a document that doesn't contain any wording, she simply peels it off the (pre-printed) mailing sheet and sticks it onto the document instead of having to write everything out.

I already informed her (the notary) that I was going to steal her idea.

I'm surprised I, or even she, didn't catch the fact that she didn't put the county. LOL Oh well! The notary was used to prove the date the document was executed and proof that it was signed under oath.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 6/16/07 4:06pm
Msg #195503

stick-on labels

A skeptical person might wonder whether the area under the stick-on label was really blank, or if something is concealed under it. A rubber stamp wouldn't have that problem.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/17/07 3:13am
Msg #195560

Re: stick-on labels

That didn't sound right to me, either. Feels too much like white-out, plus it could possibly be peeled off, too. I like the idea of a stamp much better.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 6/17/07 9:08am
Msg #195572

JanetK_CA....

A lot of notaries, including myself, have used loose acknowledgment forms that they simply staple to the document. Couldn't people simply reattach them to another document? At least with a sticker, an alert person could tell that it was peeled off (there would be little bits of paper stuck to the back of the sticker.

Also, I should have mentioned....... the notary public should impress his or her seal towards the bottom of the sticker and onto the piece of paper. Now if someone goes to peel off the sticker, there's going to be a (less then half) visible impressed notary seal that doesn't match up to anything else. This would be an obvious reattachment.

I think this technique should only be used for general notarizations. I wouldn't place a sticker on a deed or loan paperwork.

If someone really, really, wants to, they're going to find a way to commit fraud. Unfortunately we can't stop that. It's like money locked in an expensive heavy-duty vault............. if someone really wants the money, they can find a way to break into the vault to take it.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 6/17/07 9:51am
Msg #195573

loose acknowledgement forms

I know lots of people, including me, have a supply of loose acknowledgement forms, and their use is widely accepted. This just goes to show that the industry is only interested in security up to the point it becomes inconvenient. I think the problem is that the financial industry looks at things in bulk terms; if fixing the occasional fraud incident is cheaper than jumping through extra security hassles on every transaction, the extra security measures will not be adopted. Individuals, on the other hand, usually only have one house; the law of averages is no comfort to the homeowners who get wrapped up in a fraud incident.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 6/17/07 5:47am
Msg #195565

stick-on label effectively same as white-out ...

Might be fine with recorders, might be fine with a lot of things, might NOT BE okay with lenders.