Posted by Sal Servin on 10/26/11 6:24pm
Msg #401833

CROOKED PAUL GAMBS

Latest spoke with Erin @ New American Funding she directed me to Escrow Dept. GAMBS was paid
for all his fees he just ran and didn't pay his Notaries. They got rid of him no longer using this little THIEF.
His probably out @ nites snataching purses from little old ladies. His own little wrold!

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/26/11 6:33pm
Msg #401836

I don't thank so...you need to google his address, sales office it's in a very affluent neighborhood. Either they're are all crooks or they don't know he is (according to you). Wouldn't it be interesting to show up there and picket in front of his neighbors.?

Reply by Buddy Young on 10/26/11 6:42pm
Msg #401838

There are reports on this forum dating back to 2009 that complain about Paul Gambs not paying notaries.

If I took an assignment from him, I certainly would not admit it or post it.

Reply by Sal Servin on 10/26/11 6:45pm
Msg #401839

Good for you!... But a thief has to be called out.

Reply by JimAZ on 10/26/11 7:00pm
Msg #401840

agree on the thief being called out,,,,,but. Check signing central and the orange search button in the future and turn jobs back to deadbeats. That's one way we as Signing Agents can put some of these flakes out of business. Keep in mind, we are nothing but prey to these unethical people that belong in prison.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/26/11 7:51pm
Msg #401843

He was esposed, but you like many others ignored the warning n/m

Reply by HisHughness on 10/26/11 10:52pm
Msg #401858

Ths is not just discouraging, it's actually irksome

***But a thief has to be called out.***

This poster has been posting in NotRot for more than two years. His very first post was to inquire about the reputation of a hiring party. There have been numerous such inquiries since.

I judge from that that he was aware of Paul Gambs reputation, or at the very least was aware of how to determine what that reputation was. And now he comes aboard NotRot to whine about getting stiffed. Not only that, but he presumptiously says Gambs needs to be "called out."

Paul Gambs was repeatedly "called out" in the 2+ years the poster has been posting on NotRot. Despite that, he chose to do business with one of the sleaziest signing services around. My guess is he went to that polluted well more than once.

IT IS PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF SIGNING AGENT WHO KEEPS THE PAUL GAMBS OF THE WORLD IN BUSINESS.

I have no sympathy for him, and in fact feel that the simple loss of the fees he never should have contracted for in the first place is inadequate. If I was king, I would also saddle him with the unpaid fees of all the UNSUSPECTING signing agents who got duped by Gambs and did not have the warnings that the poster did. But my guess is, he will be back, complaining about other lost fees from other deadbeats that he was warned in advance were deadbeats.

You not only can't fix stupid, you shouldn't sympathize with it.

Reply by CinOH on 10/27/11 5:58am
Msg #401881

Re: Ths is not just discouraging, it's actually irksome

I agree w/ this post (double negatives and all).

What I've learned is that it is some peoples' "business model" to accept every signing that comes their way--even the deadbeats.

They always think they are going to be the exception to the rule and get paid in the end. They think other notaries are "just being negative" and did something wrong to deserve not being paid. Then they come crying over already spilled milk once they inevitably get burned themselves.

Anyone new who hasn't learned to check the ratings and search for problems with companies deserve sympathy. I hate to see anyone ripped off, but I can't seem to feel sorry for people who choose to work for a well known ripoff artist.

Greed is a terrible thing.

Reply by NJDiva on 10/27/11 8:49am
Msg #401898

YOU GOOOOOO HUGH!!!!

I guess Paul Gambs isn't the only one needing to be called out!

And what is MORE outstanding is that you came from a loving place...rofl!!!

Progress not perfection! Now that's what I'm talking about...lol

Reply by jnew on 10/27/11 10:18am
Msg #401920

Re: Ths is not just discouraging, it's actually irksome

Someone needs to show me the double negative in the sentence. They seem to be quite independent of each other. I know that it not only was grammatical, but I know it was not a no-no.

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 10:30am
Msg #401922

Wish I'd said that

***I know that it not only was grammatical, but I know it was not a no-no.***

Reply by NJDiva on 10/27/11 10:40am
Msg #401923

You just LOVE them there negatives I see!!! n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/26/11 8:38pm
Msg #401847

Even worse...do a search - goes back to 2005-2006 n/m

Reply by JimAZ on 10/26/11 9:20pm
Msg #401854

Re: Even worse...do a search - goes back to 2005-2006

Sal,, please read my post giving you advice in the future on how to avoid these deadbeats. I hope it was positive. I would also ask you to ignore the negative posters that use 20/20 hindsight to bash you because they are always negative on this site. Same people,,,same negative comments..SOSO!!! Use NotRot to your advantage and you will not be burned by flakes.

Reply by NJDiva on 10/26/11 9:05pm
Msg #401852

Buddy, my friend, I absolutely disagree...

it takes a very humble (yes, and brave) person to come on and admit it. But it's what people need to hear.

I admire the OP and applaud him/her.

Please if you get duped by one of these...hmph...please come on and let us know that it hasn't changed and maybe, just maybe it'll eventually get through to those others that will eventually fall into the same trap.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/27/11 7:55am
Msg #401889

please come on and let us know that it hasn't changed ...

Doesn't that mean they failed to heed to warnings of others? No need to fall into anyones trap when you've been forewarned. It just means that you prefer to learn from the school of hard knocks,. Not the best way to do business when you don't have to.

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/26/11 10:43pm
Msg #401857

Desktopfull, Linda and Jim are trying to tell

everyone, Dah! don't belief your lying eyes....just don't take the assignment if you feel uncomfortable with the risk involved. Move on. IMO

Reply by DudleyDawson on 10/27/11 12:46am
Msg #401869

Re: Ths is not just discouraging, it's actually irksome

Well personally I don't believe anyone on here is looking out for the interest of any other NSA's. I personally viewed a title company that was getting bad heat on here by one poster ONLY... turns out they were my best client and paid the quickest.. a lot of people on here are snakes and hoard their clients to themselves because they feel they used some magic to get them or they're so secretive that no one else could or should find them.. Grow up!

Oh and if people on here are going to insult people don't use double negatives.. it shows your stupidity..."You not only can't fix stupid, you shouldn't sympathize with it"

Who forged your transcript?

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 1:12am
Msg #401871

Re: Ths is not just discouraging, it's actually irksome

***don't use double negatives.. it shows your stupidity...Who forged your transcript?***

Well...let's just say it was someone who does not know nothing about double negatives, in marked contrast to present company.

***a lot of people on here are snakes and hoard their clients to themselves***

I may be getting a whiff of why you apparently have not been greeted with open arms and open client logs.

You not only can't fix stupid, you shouldn't argue with it either.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/27/11 8:17am
Msg #401893

I don't believe anyone on here is looking out for the intere

So, IYO, we are postingI negatives about companies to keep them for ourselves. Here is a list of companies that would be more than happy to keep you busy: Speedy Notary, Signatures Plus, Notaries Ink, SOX. Please let us know how they work out for you since you believe those of us on the board posting negative comments are snakes just tring to keep clients to ourselves.

Reply by NJDiva on 10/27/11 9:56am
Msg #401907

Dudley, Dudley, Dudley. Why must you hide behind the cloak

of a stage name? tee hee It really does sound like a cartoon name. Just like it seems your personal view may be the plot of the cartoon. (IMO) (I did a search on the name Dudley Dawson to no avail. I'm sorry if my assumption is wrong that it is anything other than yours.)

Or maybe the paranoia is starting to take over and you can't hide it any longer? If there is a resounding opinion on a company from people ACROSS THE NATION, do you really think they are in cahoots to keep the companies all to themselves?

Really Dudley? Why in the WORLD are you judging those of us that DO care about others by your very own character (however, if it's paranoia and not necessarily your character it's acceptable because at least a mental illness can be controlled by meds)?

Are you suggesting that we should ALL give those companies known to be thieves-is all I'll call them-the benefit of a doubt and only stop working for them when we get sc*$%@&???

"I personally viewed a title company that was getting bad heat on here by one poster ONLY"

What has that got to do with anything? No one ever (to my knowledge) suggested not working for a company based solely on ONE persons experience.

Sorry to have made fun of your name, views and character. if in fact it is authentic, however, I was very offended that you would question the sincerity of everyone's motives, i.e., "Well personally I don't believe anyone on here is looking out for the interest of any other NSA's."

I'm no English teacher, but I can't seem to locate the double negatives in which you find fault. I hope it doesn't show MY stupidity, cuz it makes sense to Me...LOL

And how about I don't wanna grow up, dammit! I want to stay oblivious, stupid and naive in my own little world in this great vast universe forever, it keeps me young-if only in my mind.

Reply by John/CT on 10/27/11 10:01am
Msg #401912

Very good, Ceryl n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/27/11 3:46pm
Msg #401963

Remember Dudley Do Right? We have Dudley Do Wrong.. n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/27/11 4:11pm
Msg #401966

And BTW, Dud...

Your grammatical claim: "Oh and if people on here are going to insult people don't use double negatives.. it shows your stupidity..."You not only can't fix stupid, you shouldn't sympathize with it" is incorrect.

This is not a double negative. A double negative is when two negatives cancel each other out, forming a positive. As in: "I don't have none." If you "don't have none," then you have some. A better way of saying that would be: "I have none." Still, His Hughness' post is not exactly grammatically correct. Normally, the "not only" construction requires "also" or "but" in the remaining part of the sentence. As in: "You not only can't fix stupid, you ALSO shouldn't sympathize with it." This way, the sentence has two parts similar in kind, meeting the "not only...also" rule.

See? So, now, you can no longer say NSAs never help out other NSAs on NR! (Ooops! Is that a double negative? LOL)

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 5:32pm
Msg #401974

Boy, do we get far afield here

I concur on the definition of a double negative, with this addition: The intent of the framer is what renders something ungrammatical in a double negative. If the intent of the framer was to express a negative, he/she could actually construct a triple negative, or a string of any uneven number of negatives. It would be contorted, it would be convoluted, it probably would be pointless, but grammatically it would be correct.

Double negatives as a socially unacceptable expression of a concept are of recent origin, linguistically speaking. Shakespeare used them, and at the time everyone understood what they were intended to convey.

I do not agree that the use of "also" as a conjunct adjective is required in the referenced sentence. Used as such, it is mere surplusage and adds nothing to the comprehensability of the sentence. Fowler's 'Modern English Usage' agrees.

Now, just how many NotRotters do you think have followed this discussion with intense interest? You and I? Dudley, I'm sure, lost interest some time back.

Reply by NJDiva on 10/27/11 6:23pm
Msg #401980

FALLING OUT OF MY CHAIR LAUGHING!!!

"Now, just how many NotRotters do you think have followed this discussion with intense interest?"

I have, I have, I have. That was hysterical you two! I was literally laughing from the belly!! :p

Though I must admit, I had to read the first three paragraphs very slowly...rofl

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 7:11pm
Msg #401987

Re: FALLING OUT OF MY CHAIR LAUGHING!!!

If you think that was humorous, I've got a discourse on the misapprehension of the split infinitive as emblematic of grammatical pretentiousness that will make you pee your pants.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/27/11 7:35pm
Msg #401991

Dudley started it. It's his fault

I concur with your first graph and second graph, as well (the double negative rule could apply to endless negatives in the same thought). But somewhere along the line, double negatives bceame a no-no, maybe when the grammar police mobilized. Still, no matter how many negatives are used, people generally know what you mean (even Dudley knew what you meant). It's like saying: "He's smarter than me." We know what the person means, but what they are actually saying is: "He is smarter than me" (is smart) - when he should be saying: "He is smarter than I" (am smart). But nobody talks like that, so the Modern Usage people long ago accepted the "than me" usage. Even worse, they now accept things like: "Me and Bobby McGee." No use trying to correct Janis Joplin to say: "Bobby McGee and I."
Speaking of the Modern Usage people, their relaxing of certain grammar rules has resulted in the "not only..also rule" falling by the wayside, as you noted. Deplorable, IMO, because it results in an unbalanced sentence (even though we know what you mean). Oh, and "also" as a conjunct adjective is incorrect. It's actually an adverb in the "not only ... also" usage, modifying the verb.

And I can't agree that there's a large field of NRers who would find this discussion less than fascinating ...! Whassa matta wit 'em!? As far as the Dudmeister .... you're right, we lost him long ago. He's out sniffin' and growlin' and protecting his signing territory.

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 8:29pm
Msg #401993

Have you and I ever been married, GG?

You just have to be right, don't you?

Of course "also" as I used it was not a conjunct adjective; it provided no connective tissue for the sentence at all. It was, indeed, a modifier, as you noted. It's like I had said, "GG is not only a smartass, she also is a smarty pants."

Now get off my case. I have to go find Dudley.

Reply by DudleyDawson on 10/27/11 8:39pm
Msg #401995

Re: Dudley started it. It's his fault

Haha what a stir I have caused. Most of you are double glancing your community college degrees debating whether to take them back or burn them as they are of no use to you..ROFL WMPO...

As far as NSA's that hoard their clients like starved orphans.. A lot of you on here know what I mean. There may not be a lot of intentional company bashing but there is a lot of disinformation being spewed. All I was trying to get at is if there is a posting that speaks distastefully of a title company to do your own research. I have been burned we all have but you can not let that deter you from pushing on 79.9% of the time it may turn out to be true . No I am not on this forum all the live long day because I actually stay busy, I'm sure most of you are too.

As far as the Hughness I'm sure your adaptation of Ron White was perfectly intended with good humor.

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 8:53pm
Msg #401996

Re: Dudley started it. It's his fault

***Most of you are double glancing your community college degrees***

Actually, Dudley, I've got a doctoral level degree, have taught at two of the largest state universities in Texas, and for well over a decade evaluated teacher certification exams for several states. But you believe whatever helps you get through the day, fellow.

Reply by Chris O on 11/13/11 11:25pm
Msg #403816

I completely understand the frustration I'm hearing in these posts, but I have to say a few words that will probably be met with some hostility. Heck, you're owed money and that is all you care about. I get it.

The fact is Paul is now out of business. We talked via text messages about a month ago. His business is gone and his life is upside down. The guy has 5 kids and his life just imploded. No, I'm not friends with Paul and have never met him in real life. I'm in Florida and he is out in California. I'm not posting this at his request and more than likely he'll never see this or know that someone came to his defense. Look, I lost money just like you guys. As of right now I'm owed $415 and know I'm never going to see a penny of it.

My point is I don't agree with the assessment that Paul is a thief or that he purposely screwed anyone out of money. I do agree with the argument that Paul mismanaged his business and money and is now screwed as a result. Yeah, we're all screwed too. But this happens in the business world all the time. Corporations are dissolved and people lose some money. It doesn't mean that illegal activities were responsible for the crisis. It just means running a business is tough and some businesses fail. In this economy a ton of people are in Paul's same situation and are losing everything they worked for all their life.

I don't agree with people posting his physical address. There are mentally and morally challenged people out there and you're putting the guy and his kids in danger with this malicious behavior.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't have a clue whether there is a legal means to recover money from a dissolved corporation. I'm just saying that Paul's business and income no longer exist and I just can't see a purpose in pushing this any further.

www.CallChrisToday.com