Posted by Stamper_WI on 12/1/10 2:58pm
Msg #363472

Fraud against a notary?

Busted

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/halpin-meeks-signatures-c_n_790484.html

Reply by bagger on 12/1/10 3:16pm
Msg #363477

Ya just gotta love the Chicago politics!
Did I say Democratic Chicago politics?

Reply by Robert Williams on 12/1/10 3:25pm
Msg #363479

Not so fast! I think they missed this one...

According to my search of the Illinois SOS directory, there are 4 notaries named Maricela Rodriguez in Illinois. And there are quite a few more of M Rodriguez, so if the signature and the stamp don't match the only one the reporter talked to do you think he really did his job?

I mean, really, didn't any of the morons at the Sun-Times or at least at the Huff do ANY research before they went to press with this?

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/1/10 3:40pm
Msg #363480

Something like this happened to a notary in WI. She got a call from a FL sherriff asking about her notarizing an application in WI for a UPS mailbox down there. Someone had a seal made with her info and used it for that purpose. They ltracked the perps in Finland

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 12/1/10 6:49pm
Msg #363524

Zana, that is another issue than the one he raised.

One is an issue of identity theft while the other is one of possibly another notary, with the same name, actually preforming the act and another notary, again same name, claiming she didn't notarize the signatures, so therefore, it must be fraud.

What Robert pointed out was that there is more than on notary with the same name therefore, the reporters should have checked will all of them before automatically allowing a claim of fraud to be reported just because the one notary stated that she did not notarize the signatures. He has a valid point. (Robert; No, they did not do their jobs, IMO)

It may turn out that something along the lines of what you mentioned may have happened, but until they ask all the notaries with the same name they cannot automatically assume that the seal is a fake.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/1/10 8:43pm
Msg #363549

I'll admit I didn't read the article that closely, but I don't recall it mentioning that this person was the only one by that name that the reporter talked to. In fact, it didn't address the issue at all of how it was figured out that this lady was the right one. For all we know, he may have talked to all of them and ruled them out - or someone else did. That isn't the kind of thing that usually gets put into an article of this size. I think it's a good idea to be careful about making assumptions -- or did I miss something?

The part that caught my attention was when she said this:

"I would think I would remember doing 200 notaries for this person." You becha!! I'm pretty sure I'd remember that, too!!

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 12/2/10 8:30am
Msg #363577

The fault is the journalist

It is the responsibility of the writer to include the information. That type of information IS important regardless of the size of the article. If there is no room to include such information, there should be no room for the entire article. It is incomplete.

The assumptions are made precisely because the writer (or editors) did not do a good job and left the information out.

It appears that Zana did get an update on this ( Msg #363555 ) however, how many people did not email the writer to gain clarification? It is not the reader's job to have to contact journalists on every story because of a decision not to include essential information, it is the journalist job to include the information to begin with.


"...doing 200 notaries..." Yup, I would think that would be memorable. ROTFL

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/1/10 6:31pm
Msg #363514

yawn, what else is new with Chicago politics!!

My precinct captain came by a few months ago, seeking sigs on a petition for our current alderman to run for re-election. As I am signing my name, he asks me if my husband was home, and I said no. He then says, 'well go ahead and sign for him, I'm sure he won't mind!'

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 12/1/10 7:08pm
Msg #363531

LOL too funny.

I mean, not really funny, but you know what I mean.