Turns out that 2 days ago, the House of Reprehensibles decided to vote - TODAY - on overriding the possibly-ineffective "pocket veto" of the Bill that would require state courts to recognize out-of state notarizations.
As outrageous as this is on its face, it occurs to me that this could have the exact opposite of the intended effect. The overwhelming evidence shows that "robosigners" (sic) have perjured themselves in order to facilitate fraud. In many cases, as already observed by state and federal courts, the same individual's signature appears as an "officer" (usually a "vice president"...how appropriate) of both the "Assignor" and "Assignee" on falsified mortgage transfers. Numerous deposition videos published on the net establish that these "robosigners" were not, in fact, "employed" by the shell companies for which they "signed".
Suppose this thing (the override) actually passes. Suppose that state courts are then required - BY FEDERAL LAW - to
"...recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce..."
as the bankster/Masters have demanded of their "congressional" slaves.
Wouldn't that then require the state courts to recognize the signature notarized? The dual "Assignor"/"Assignee" signatures would - AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW - be required to be recognized.
Wouldn't that then require the state courts to recognize the perjury?
Wouldn't that then require the state courts to recognize the fraud?