Posted by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 3:01pm
Msg #431174

Notary Oath of Office

Hi everyone

I'm new here from Colorado. Was wondering what ya'll think about this, in at least 42 States, Notaries are required to take an oath to the Constitution, including their State Constitution. This usually stems from the State constitution itself requiring a loyalty oath of office. In Colorado, this used to be required until at least the 1920s as far as I can tell from research, but was most likely dropped during re-codification of the Notary Public Act in 1981... However notaries public are still considered civil officers, and as such would be required to take this oath. Now I'm in a catch-22 where I can't find one single de jure notary who has taken their oath already in Colorado, and the county recorder's office and court clerks all refuse to do this for me even though they are statutorily authorized.

I've wrote at length about this subject on my blog on the following posts:

http://lucky225.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/notary-public-the-unrecognized-state-officer-part-2-oath-of-office-47-2/
http://lucky225.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/de-jure-vs-de-facto-notaries-public-9/
http://lucky225.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/de-jure-notaries-in-colorado-part-deux/

What do ya'll think?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/20/12 3:24pm
Msg #431184

As a notary in CT I had to take my approval

form to my town clerk, they gave the oath, they signed it and recorded it, then I got my commission.

Here in Florida, no oath, no recording...which is fine with me.

My question - if it's not required in CO, why are you making a federal case out of it? Why are you relying on 1922 legislation to argue this? Certainly there has to be some more current laws on the books to cover this. And simply put, if the statutes have been updated and the issuance of an oath was omitted, it was probably on purpose.

JMO

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 3:33pm
Msg #431186

Re: As a notary in CT I had to take my approval

Thanks for the reply,

In Florida there is an oath, it is on the application. http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/applpkg.pdf

I DO solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State of Florida; that I have read Chapter 117, Florida Statutes, and any amendments thereto, and know the duties, responsibilities, limitations, and powers of a notary public; and that I will honestly, diligently, and faithfully discharge the duties of Notary Public, State of Florida on which I am now about to enter, (so help me God).

My thing is, all de facto notaries can be ousted, once it is discovered that you are a de facto, the court can bar you from proceeding as a notary later until the err or defect is corrected, furthermore in order to be a de facto you must actually believe that you are a de jure officer, I can not turn a blind eye to the fact that I know I'm required to take the oath per Colorado's constitution, I factually know I'm not yet authorized to perform my duties. Also, I'm not the only one relying on early 19th and 20th century case law, as late as 1975 the comptroller general was issuing opinions that stated it seems clear a notary is a civil office as Colorado's own supreme court ruled in 1886, which has NOT been overturned to the best of my knowledge, that same opinion also says an oath is required, but I haven't seen 1975's statutes to see if it's similar to 1981's oath that dropped the constitutional language or not. If the legislature simply made an omission, that is not clear intent to exempt a Notary, and as a civil officer, if not exempt, would be required to still take this oath.

Reply by Karla/WA on 8/20/12 3:44pm
Msg #431190

Re: As a notary in CT I had to take my approval

So sorry, I'm having a really really difficult time even reading this reply.

So sorry for the citizens in CO that (I now know) will be subject to magnifying glasses, et al.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/20/12 4:35pm
Msg #431192

Linda - FL notaries DO take oaths of office. It's on n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/20/12 4:35pm
Msg #431193

Sorry - its on the bottom of the application n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/20/12 4:58pm
Msg #431197

As opposed to standing in front of the town clerk,

raising my right hand, having her state the oath and responding "I do" - physically in front of the clerk...then sign in front of her, she signs it, stamps and they record it in the town land records (Connecticut's standard for recording).

I was talking about that type of "being sworn in"

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 6:25pm
Msg #431216

Re: As opposed to standing in front of the town clerk,

Does no one attest the signature on the Florida application? How can they use the words "I Swear" if it's not an actual sworn statement?

Reply by jba/fl on 8/20/12 9:54pm
Msg #431254

I Swear - I am reading. I sign my name signifying agreement

to what I have read. That is my seal...that is how I make myself known.

We can study each word here and continue, but I am too tired to do that now.

Did you know what the Weeki Wachee springs and river have the prettiest water you could ever hope to see? Don't you have any nice Colorado or mountain sunsets to talk about?

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 10:28pm
Msg #431261

Re: I Swear - I am reading. I sign my name signifying agreement

Yes, love the colorado views

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/12 9:40am
Msg #431303

As Becca used to say about this type of post: Troll Alert.

It's obvious that you have never given a written sworn statement.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/21/12 9:59am
Msg #431307

Re: As Becca used to say about this type of post: Troll Alert.

No, I'm actually asking because there is conflicting information about this.

http://sccoclerk.com/oathsfaq.pdf

1) What is an Oath? An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āš, also called plight) is either a promise or a
statement of fact calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God,
as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath.

In law, oaths are made by a witness to a court of law before giving testimony and usually by a newlyappointed government officer to the people of a state before taking office. In both of those cases, though, an affirmation can be usually substituted. A written statement, if the author swears the statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is called an affidavit. The oath given to support an affidavit is frequently administered by a notary public who will memorialize the giving of the oath by affixing her or his seal to the document. Breaking an oath (or affirmation) is perjury. (Source, Wikipedia)

Colorado statutes also seem to support that an "oath" can be unwitnessed (C.R.S. 18-8-501(2) (a)(III)) however C.R.S. 12-55-304 seems to imply that an unwitnessed statement is an 'unsworn' declaration;

12-55-304
(a) Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (b) of this section, if a law of this state requires or permits use of a sworn declaration,
an unsworn declaration meeting the requirements of this part 3 has the same effect as a sworn
declaration.
(b) This part 3 does not apply to:
(1) A deposition;
(2) An oath of office;
(3) An oath required to be given before a specified official other than a notary public;
(4) A declaration to be recorded pursuant to article 35 of title 38, C.R.S., for the purposes
of conveying and recording title to real property or a declaration required to be recorded for
purposes of registering title to real property pursuant to article 36 of title 38, C.R.S.; or
(5) An oath required by section 15-11-504, C.R.S., for a self-proved will

I mean, it would seem that by simply adding the words "I swear" to the written declaration makes it a 'sworn statement', then the entire purpose of the sections that part 3 doesn't apply to would not matter.

In either event, I did submit a "self-affirmed" "sworn" statement to the Sec. of State already( http://luckyinvestigations.com/self.pdf ) -- but I'm not 100% sure that qualifies without a witness to it.

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/12 10:40am
Msg #431312

Re: As Becca used to say about this type of post: Troll Alert.

In Florida we have an "Affidavit of Character" as part of the application for someone (unrelated) to attest to our good character, so I would consider that a witness. However, I wasn't aware that it was inclusive of any notary's duty to interpret the law, which is what you appear to be doing with this post. Here in FL, that is considered UPL (unauthorized practice of law). If you are so concerned that the letter of the law isn't being followed 100% I suggest that you visit an attorney (licensed in your state) of your choice for counsel. Maybe even get the attorney to swear you in since they are considered officer's of the court. That would solve all of your doubts.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/21/12 11:20am
Msg #431315

Re: As Becca used to say about this type of post: Troll Alert.

I don't know, the oath we do take in Colorado requires us to swear that we have " carefully read the
notary law of this state, and..I will faithfully perform, to the best of my ability, all notarial acts in conformance with the law" -- I think taking an Oath that you have read the law and will faithfully perform your acts in CONFORMANCE with the law would require at least an understanding("interpretation") of the law in order to comply with it. Again, not stating that this is or is not correct, not legal advice, just a plain reading of the Colorado Constitution, Article 12, Sec 8, which has not been repealed, as I have READ that, and wish to perform my notarial acts in CONFORMANCE with the law, I'm simply trying to determine what the law is, if there is something that states the oath is not required, you would think it would be expressly exempted so there wasn't any ambiguity.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/21/12 1:09pm
Msg #431333

Re: As Becca used to say about this type of post: Troll Alert.

Do you ever get accused of 1. belaboring the point 2. over thinking the issue?

I think you are getting that now with a collective yawn and/or sigh. As they say: Keep it moving folks, nothing to see here.

Reply by Karla/WA on 8/20/12 3:40pm
Msg #431188

I agree with Linda. Focus on the intent of why we are notaries. We are ensuring that legal documents are signed by the intended party.

My suggestion would be to put as much emphasis on the current rules and regulations of CO notary law as you are with crossing the t's and dotting the i's with 1920's law.

Do your job and don't make it a hardship for those who are appearing before you, as we deal with end of life issues, major financial transactions, business transactions, and a variety of other issues that have real life impact.

Do your job....professionally.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 3:42pm
Msg #431189

But that's the thing, there is nothing I've found that expressly exempts a notary public in Colorado from NOT taking the oath, therefore it is still today's law. I'm simply trying to abide by the highest law in this State other then the US CONSTITUTION, our State's constitution.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 4:25pm
Msg #431191

How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin? And do you know Robert in FL?
When you signed and swore to your notary application did you not do so under oath in front of a commissioned notary public, an officer of the state? Did you not among other things swear to abide by Colorado notary law; that you are a Colorado and US citizen; without felony convictions; that you were 18 and that you were literate in the English language? Is that not an ‘oath of office’? If not what was it? If you would like to compose some document, that has the wording you require about upholding the Colorado notary laws, US and Colorado constitution, by whatever living god you wish, bring it to me (with proper ID) I will place you under oath, you can swear to it, and sign it I will notarize it, and you can take it to the clerk and recorder’s office and record it. Or not.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 4:42pm
Msg #431196

Hi Les, yes, that is an oath prescribed in statute at 12-55-105, at the time, I was not aware that all civil officers must also swear to uphold the US Constitution and the constitution of this State(Section 8, Article XII, Colorado Constitution "Every civil officer... shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado"). I submitted this application to another Notary, who I believed to be de jure, but is actually a de facto Notary as she herself did not take this required oath. However, that application is still valid under the de facto doctrine, as a de facto officer's acts are still valid as held to the public and 3rd parties so not as to wreck the whole document (i.e. property title transfers, etc.). However now that I know this notary is in fact a de facto, and practically all notaries are, I can not rely on or believe that they are de jure notaries who would be able to take this oath for me. If you have in fact taken this oath and are a de jure notary, I'd love to come down to take it. Right now I'm actually emailing with Douglas county's Clerk & Recorder, they're contemplating doing it so I might be in that area, if you are not de jure, I can administer the oath for you to fix your title of office if they swear me in

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/20/12 5:12pm
Msg #431201

"However notaries public are still considered civil officers, and as such would be required to take this oath." How do you know? Since the Colorado notary law is now part of Title 12, Professions and Occupations, maybe notaries are members of a profession or occupation, and not officers.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 5:30pm
Msg #431202

Well, I'm definitely open to that interpretation, the 1886 ruling was not as far as I can tell overturned as late as 1975 as inferred from the Comptroller General's opinion from that time at http://redbook.gao.gov/1/fl0000324.php, and Notaries Public was still in Title 12, Chapter 55 at that time.

“IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE POSITION OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN COLORADO FITS THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL OFFICE LONG APPLIED BY THIS OFFICE IN CONSTRUING 10 U.S.C. 973(B), IN THAT IT IS CREATED BY LAW AND HAS CERTAIN DUTIES IMPOSED ON IT BY LAW WHICH INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF A PORTION OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER. 44 COMP. GEN. 830, SUPRA, AND 29 COMP. GEN. 363, SUPRA. ALSO, CONTRARY TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE AIR FORCE, IN OUR VIEW THE POSITION OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN COLORADO CLEARLY INVOLVES TENURE, DURATION AND EMOLUMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE POSITION OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN THAT STATE IS AN OFFICE. SEE IN RE HOUSE BILL NO. 166, 21 P. 473 (1886). FURTHER, IT IS WELL-RECOGNIZED GENERALLY THAT NOTARIES PUBLIC ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS. SEE 66 C.J.S. NOTARIES SECT. 1, AND 19 COMP. GEN. 951, 953 (1940).”

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 5:31pm
Msg #431203

Fat fingered the post button, also meant to include the rest of the 1975 comptroller's opinion:

CONCERNING THE POSITION OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, THAT STATE'S LAW PROVIDES THAT NOTARIES PUBLIC SHALL BE APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO HOLD OFFICE FOR 4 YEARS UNLESS SOONER REMOVED (SECTION 12-55-101, C.R.S. 1973); THAT THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AND AUTHENTICATE ANY ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO ANY INSTRUMENT, TO ADMINISTER ANY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO TAKE ANY DEPOSITION, TO MAKE ANY DECLARATION OR PROTEST, TO DO ANY OTHER ACT USUALLY DONE BY A NOTARY PUBLIC, AND TO CERTIFY THE TRUTH OF ANY OF THEIR OFFICIAL ACTS UNDER THEIR OFFICIAL SEALS (SECTION 12-55-102(1), C.R.S. 1973); THAT IN ELECTION CONTESTS FOR THE OFFICE OF STATE SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE THEY MAY ISSUE SUBPOENAS AND SHALL HAVE POWER TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES, TAKE DEPOSITIONS, AND CERTIFY THE SAME (SECTION 1-10-108(4), C.R.S. 1973); THAT THEY SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF EVERY ACKNOWLEDGMENT TAKEN TO AN INSTRUMENT AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AND THEY SHALL BE LIABLE UPON THEIR OFFICIAL BONDS FOR DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS (SECTION 12-55 -103, C.R.S. 1973); THAT EACH OFFICIAL ACT SHALL BE ATTESTED BY NOTARIAL SEAL (SECTION 12-55 105, C.R.S. 1973); AND THAT BEFORE ENTERING UPON THE DUTIES OF OFFICE, THEY SHALL TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND SHALL GIVE BOND TO THE STATE (SECTION 12-55-106, C.R.S. 1973). SUCH LAWS ALSO PROVIDE THAT A NOTARY MAY CHARGE FEES FOR HIS SERVICES WHICH FEES ARE PRESCRIBED BY LAW (SECTION 12-55-110, C.R.S. 1973).

Reply by Karla/WA on 8/20/12 5:40pm
Msg #431206

Oh my glory! ....my advice to you, Jered, is to take a deep breath......it's going to be ok.....many CO notaries have completed their responsibilities professionally and with the intent of the law. Maybe you should consider something that is a little more "black and white"......but for God's sake I haven't a clue what that would be.

I'm done posting here because he doesn't get it.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 5:51pm
Msg #431210

I don't know what's more black and white than "Every civil officer, //shall//, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado" -- which, as previously discussed, it is well recognized that notaries are civil officers, by our Colorado Supreme Court and American Jurisprudence.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/20/12 6:00pm
Msg #431211

Oh My Glory...

I learned a new thing to say.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 6:01pm
Msg #431212

Re: Oh My Glory...

I think when I eventually get sworn in, I'm going to swear by the ever-living glory

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/20/12 6:13pm
Msg #431213

Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger? n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/20/12 6:16pm
Msg #431214

Ok...I see that you are.

The owner is not watching or your posts would be deleted. It's kind of an annoyance when a blogger gets started posting here.

You should join LinkedIn and blog there. It is appropriate there, here it is not.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 6:21pm
Msg #431215

Re: Ok...I see that you are.

I'm a notary who happens to blog. Just trying to get to the bottom of this issue so I can start performing my actual duties as a Notary

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 6:42pm
Msg #431218

Jared, Who gives a poop? n/m

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 6:51pm
Msg #431219

Re: Jared, Who gives a poop?

I would assume notaries would, considering they're required to take it. California? Didn't you yourself swear to such an oath, does it not mean anything to you? Should someone who doesn't care about oaths be administering oaths?

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 6:58pm
Msg #431221

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

If this guy ever becomes ‘legal’ in his mind, and also decides to become a….”Notary Signing Agent” I can just imagine the posts. Already FL/Robert looks like an easy going, tolerant, sole of brevity…..I can hardly wait.

Reply by Karla/WA on 8/20/12 7:00pm
Msg #431222

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

Les, maybe you can be Jered's mentor!

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 7:08pm
Msg #431224

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

Not qualified (in his mind) although a notary before 1981, not before women got the vote.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 7:22pm
Msg #431225

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

If you really were a notary(in Colorado) prior to 1981 re-codification, was the constitutional oath required prior to 1981? That is something I'm having a hard time getting clarification on without driving out to a law library to look up the prior statutes. It seems to me that the legislature just totally dropped the ball when they enacted the Notary Public Act of 1981 and omitted it.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 7:47pm
Msg #431227

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

To be honest I don’t remember, as I recall (off the top of my head) the process was virtually the same as it is now, with the exception that one had to be bonded, and in getting the bond there was an oath required, whether it was ‘Before God” or swearing to uphold, and abide by US and CO Constitution I don’t recall. I’ll think on it, I’d say at least two single malt’s worth.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 8:13pm
Msg #431233

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

Bonds were still required up until 1992, and the oath from 12-55-105 was still on the application between 1981 - 1992. Do you recall an oath required with the bond AND the application? THAT is probably key, most states that require the CONSTITUTIONAL oath require it on the bond, and sometimes having a different oath on the application (arizona is a prime example, the oath on the app is NOT the constitutional language but one very similar to Colorado, the oath with the bond however, is.) If you can't remember and I do end up making the trip to Castle Rock, I might just pull a record request while at the clerks office, that might gleen some information on what went down back then.

Reply by bfnotary on 8/21/12 5:26am
Msg #431286

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

Only thing I wonder is why this post takes up an entire page, and why in the world does old law matter? It isn't prior to 1981 last I checked.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/21/12 9:35am
Msg #431302

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

It isn't the 1770s either, yet we continue to rely on a document from that time frame to determine if laws are valid. The Colorado Constitution is 100 years younger, I think it's valid in determining if current Notary Practice is valid without an oath to it.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 7:07pm
Msg #431223

Re: Jered, are you a notary? Or, just a blogger?

Has nothing to do with my mind, I'm still waiting to see an attorney general opinion or case law overruling the 1886 court case, which in that time, had barred notaries from becoming Notaries Public -- WHY? Because the COLORADO CONSTITUTION did not allow WOMEN to be a civil officer, on account they were not qualified voters. When they became qualified voters, then and only then, did they become eligible for the office of notary public. While the 'qualified voters' provision of the Colorado Constitution was later nullified in Federal court(which is why it is now open to Colorado RESIDENTS), that did not however change the status of notaries as a civil office, and as such the provision requiring an oath to support the constitution has not been, to my knowledge, nullified. Feel free to rebuttal this with something factual.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/20/12 7:50pm
Msg #431229

3 Points, Jered...

1-You began this dialog by asking, "What do ya'll think?" and now you say, "Feel free to rebuttal this with something factual." I strongly feel that it must be one or the other.

2-Do you want a legal discussion? A debate? In order to get the legal debate response, you will have to wait until Hugh is having a restless night, RobertFL is on Spring Break from law school, or until someone in tonight's audience has had three martinis and feels pretty, smart, bilingual, and lawyerly. (I just can't do that tonight--work and all that, you know.)

3-Maybe if you could tell us in 50 words or less what you hope to gain from this discussion, you would receive a valuable response. Bullet points are encouraged.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 8:04pm
Msg #431231

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

I think all the responses have been of some value; I sort of favor the ‘poop’ one.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 8:05pm
Msg #431232

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

1- Touche, thank you for putting me in check. Not trying to be obnoxious here, just trying to have an open discussion about this at I truly believe this is something that has been overlooked since 1981.

2- Hey, we're Notaries, we don't give legal advice and lawerly I'm just looking for something factual that states we're not required to give the oath, and if not, who do we get to administer it for us when the rest of us aren't sworn ourself?

3 - I donno if I went over 50 words above there, but basically open flow of discussion that will say one way or the other, definitively, why or why not the oath is or isn't required in Colorado Cheeers.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/20/12 8:13pm
Msg #431234

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

"...why or why not the oath is or isn't required in Colorado..."

Without having transcripts of legislative hearings you cannot figure out "why," in my humble opinion.

Another humble opinion: The State of Colorado is not going to decommission all of its notaries.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/20/12 10:03pm
Msg #431255

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

"Another humble opinion: The State of Colorado is not going to decommission all of its notaries."

You really don't think so Brenda? It might be a money maker somehow.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/20/12 8:37pm
Msg #431241

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

I believe an oath was and is required by those applying for a CO notary public commission. The exact wording of that oath may differ from what your intrepertation of what that law states, or should state. Laws change, and I abide by the laws as now written. It could be that the actual wording is at the discretion of the person administering that oath, as long as the intent is clear? I swear people in all the time, and I may sometimes use different words. As long as the oath giver understands that they are swearing to something, under oath (with the penalty of perjury) I’m okay with it. And I have sworn in people in testifying in court before a judge, and they seen to have been okay with it. And if I ain’t a “legal” Colorado notary….then there are a whole lot of lot of people/banks/lenders/title companies/and court proceedings with mucho problems.JMO

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 9:01pm
Msg #431246

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

"And if I ain’t a “legal” Colorado notary….then there are a whole lot of lot of people/banks/lenders/title companies/and court proceedings with mucho"

Wrong, the de facto doctrine holds your acts as valid to the public and 3rd parties.

From: http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/lglb124.pdf

"The basic rule, which we’ll call the de facto officer doctrine, is that, as a practical matter, the acts
of a de facto officer are as valid as the acts of a de jure officer.1

The difference between the two is that if the status of the officer is directly challenged in an appropriate proceeding—an action in the nature of quo warranto, under Chapter 1, Article 41, of the North Carolina General Statutes (hereinafter G.S.)—the de jure officer will survive the challenge while the de facto officer will not.2"
1. From the earliest cases, e.g., Burke v. Elliott, 26 N.C. 355 (1844), the courts have stated that the acts of de facto officers are as valid as those of de jure officers as to third parties and the public

While this is North Carolina, it's practically the same across the board and I'm using it only as an example.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 9:12pm
Msg #431248

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

As to the wording, I agree the wording can vary, but the oath itself on the CO application does NOT require the affiant to uphold the US constitution, nor the Constitution of Colorado, both of which are specifically required by our Constitution. It does require that the affiant swear to have read "the notary law" of this State though, I don't think that in anyway implies one's intention to uphold the constitution, nor does Title 12 Chapter 55 really say anything about upholding the Constitution anyhow. Interestingly though another Florida user here claimed they aren't 'swore in', though the swear/affirm wording is on the application, they haven't replied to me yet as to whether or not their signature is attested, I'm wondering about the legality of such "oath". Here in Colorado "Oath" includes written statements if "The statement is made, used, or offered with the intent that it be accepted as compliance with a statute, rule, or regulation which requires a statement under oath or other like form of attestation to the truth of the matter contained in the statement."

Therefore I wonder if "oath" actually requires a witness. For example, self-affirmation in voting is acceptable and uses the words "solemnly swear", can an Oath of Office, or any "required oath" go unattested? I don't know, I thought the whole point of oaths & affirmation was that they are attested by a 3rd party, such as us notaries. I did submit a self-affirmation (http://luckyinvestigations.com/self.pdf) to the Sec. of State, signed by myself on August 8th, sent it with delivery confirmation on August 9th and it 'left the sort facility' on August 13th never to be heard from or confirmed delivered.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 9:38pm
Msg #431252

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

Hey Les,

Your profile says you're currently bonded. Most bond companies include the oath on the bond application, do you recall taking any oath for your current bond? Have any copies of the current bond paperwork to see if maybe you haven't already taken the oath for your current commission?

Reply by Les_CO on 8/21/12 9:18am
Msg #431299

Re: 3 Points, Jered...

Yes I am currently bonded. One can be bonded without being a notary public, but I do hold a current Colorado notary public commission, I am also licensed: I currently hold a Colorado Real Estate Broker’s license,(and a driver’s license, a commercial pilot’s license, and I’m a certified diver, some of this is not in my profile) I am insured; I have E&O insurance both as a notary and as a real estate broker, I also carry business, life, health, and auto, and motorcycle insurance. I don’t recall the exact wording on my bond, or the wording on the oath I took (if any). I suggest you call a bonding company and look into it if you’re interested.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/21/12 11:09am
Msg #431313

As a PS:

FYI CO notary commissions are only good for 4 years, so even though I was first commissioned in 1978, no one in CO has a commission more than 4 years old, meaning that my commission, and all valid commissions were/are granted under laws of 2008 and later.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/21/12 11:23am
Msg #431316

Re: As a PS:

I'm well aware of that, I've done a very brief search for a bonding company that bonds Colorado notaries, I found some bond company in Denver, but it didn't appear that they actually bond notaries in Colorado, just surrounding States, all the forms for the surrounding States though did include an Oath, so I was just wondering if you recall or not from the last bond.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/21/12 12:05pm
Msg #431326

Re: As a PS:

No I don’t recall, I have that stuff somewhere, along with my insurance policies, and if I get time I’ll look it up.

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 10:15pm
Msg #431259

Haven't you figured out yet that you are a LOOSER?

Hopefully Harry will zap your thread. As stated earlier, You will never get it.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 10:33pm
Msg #431262

Re: Haven't you figured out yet that you are a LOOSER?

I believe you're the one who doesn't get it as you have nothing of value to add/contribute, on something that is pretty easy to understand, especially for a notary whose entire profession consist of taking oaths & affirmations, sworn statements, acknowledgements, etc. I apologize if you're still having trouble comprehending such simple concepts.

Reply by sealed/CA on 8/20/12 10:46pm
Msg #431263

Re: I will come to your defense.

Hi Jered,
I think it's great that you are concerned that things are done properly and lawfully, although it may not matter to anyone else or change anything if you had been given the oath or not. I'm sure that you would win any court battle just by your due diligence. It's good that you are trying to bring to attention that the oath is not being given. I hope someone will listen.
I too get bothered when things are not done according to law or purpose.
The first time that I was commissioned, the county clerk took her role seriously and did have me raise my right hand and repeat the oath. And yes, it was to uphold the constitution. I think that each time thereafter, I just signed the application after the wording, and they notarized. Can't really remember. Anyway, the wording was on the application. Was it not on yours?

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 10:52pm
Msg #431265

Re: I will come to your defense.

No, the only wording on the application in Colorado is the following, as found in C.R.S. 12-55-105:

"I,(name of applicant)
solemnly affirm, under the penalty of perjury in the second
degree, as defined in section 18-8-503, Colorado Revised Statutes, that I have carefully read the
notary law of this state, and, if appointed and commissioned as a notary public, I will faithfully
perform, to the best of my ability, all notarial acts in conformance with the law."

The Colorado Constitution requires every civil officer to take an oath to "defend the constitution", thus the oath on the application, and found in 12-55-105 is non compliant, and in my view, both the Oath on the application and an additional oath to the constitution would need to be submitted.

I'm glad you see the clarity in this though, while it's probably no big deal to you that the clerk didn't require it the last couple of times, I'm sure if you're like me, it kind of seems like WTF? Because you know darn well if it was YOU performing that same notarization, your commission is on the line if you don't do it by the book.

Reply by sealed/CA on 8/20/12 11:00pm
Msg #431268

Re: I will come to your defense.

They may just need to update the application to include the extra verbiage. I don't know who you would need to contact in CO. I would probably start with the SOS if it were CA.
Let us know if and when you get a good answer or change.
Blessings...

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 11:03pm
Msg #431270

Re: I will come to your defense.

Speaking of application updates see Msg #275238 -- did California ever get their application updated to be in compliance with their own rules?

Reply by sealed/CA on 8/20/12 11:06pm
Msg #431271

Re: I will come to your defense.

No, I don't think they've changed it yet. We just add a loose leaf jurat. Maybe it's a test by the SOS to see who's paying attention.

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 11:01pm
Msg #431269

Jered don't you do e-docs?

According to the numbers group you have a very limited practice, and do not even do E-docs. Care to respond???

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 11:10pm
Msg #431272

Re: Jered don't you do e-docs?

I don't do anything as I haven't been able to get this Oath of Office administered by a de jure officer, as I haven't taken an Oath, I don't believe I am legally permitted to perform any duties yet.

However does this answer your question:

https://www.sos.state.co.us/NotaryPublic/pdf/notary-64666-39962a38-a06e-4366-849e-9202d4f97031.pdf

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 11:13pm
Msg #431274

Jered says does not do "anything"

Except tie up Notrot with his personal blog. He is not a "practicing notary" and really does not appear to know "beans when the bags open", yet he is critical of those that perform the Notary Signings totally within the law. What a looser.

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 11:29pm
Msg #431275

Re: Jered says does not do "anything"

Yes, a looser because I have ethics. *rolls eyes* I can not practice something I'm not legally permitted to do in the first place. Why would I apply to become a notary if I didn't have any intention of actually notarizing anything? I just realized that an oath is required and have been attempting to get this oath administered so as to be legally compliant with the highest law in our State, the Colorado Constitution. But, I suppose the fact that I read the entire statutes, took the required training, and went above and beyond the due diligence required, and quite possibly the only Notary in this State that acknowledges through hours of research that an oath to the constitution is actually required, and all the case law and notary history available for this State going back to the 1800s, makes me not qualified to know anything about the subject and profession of Notary Public within this State. If a Notary here has not taken the required oath, please tell me how they are 'within the law', because I'm a loser that exempts Notaries from that one part of the law, our State Constitution, which requires the Oath?

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 11:37pm
Msg #431277

Ethics.

Your statement is an insult to all of the practicing Notaries in the State of Colorado. I am not one of them, but, through this forum the last 5 years I believe I have gotten to know some of them. You are demeaning to them and, IMHO you have no actual basis for your being this way, no matter what you say. I personally hope you never get that oath. God help those that would need to have you process and notarize their loan docs. Time at the table would be forever.

Reply by KODI/CA on 8/20/12 11:38pm
Msg #431278

Goodbye Jered. I have wasted enough time on you. n/m

Reply by Jered Morgan on 8/20/12 11:45pm
Msg #431279

Re: Ethics.

My basis is the plain text reading of our State Constitution, and it is in no way meant to be demeaning to any Notary in this state, they believe they are in compliance with the law, and as such are de facto officers, and I can respect that point of view, I'm only trying to open discussion on this topic, and I'm open to any factual information that is a rebuttal to my position that an Oath is required. Through my own research, based on factual information (a plain reading of the State Constitution, Supreme Court Opinion, and case law) has not been rebutted by you with any factual basis that an Oath is not required, other than YOUR demeaning statement that I am a 'loser', which I'm not sure if you're aware, doesn't fly in court. Processing and notarizing documents would not take any time from me whatsoever, as a disinterested non-attorney witness, parties are free to sign and mutually agree to anything they wish, I would just be attesting that.

Reply by HisHughness on 8/21/12 12:00am
Msg #431280

Congratulations, Jered, you are the new record holder

17 posts in one thread that you initiated. That far exceeds the old record of 14 in Message #408044. Not only that, but you managed to squeeze in three successive posts, something none of the other aspirants to the record have done. Those of us who have been around awhile are envious that you newcomers can make such an impact almost instantaneously.

Way to go, guy.

Reply by Buddy Young on 8/21/12 12:32am
Msg #431281

Re: Another record, Hugh. Jered had to sit at his

computer for 8 hours to write those 17 posts.

Reply by Buddy Young on 8/21/12 12:34am
Msg #431282

Re: Correction, 25 posts for Jered. n/m

Reply by Jack/AL on 8/21/12 12:45am
Msg #431283

"Stupid is as stupid does" --- Forrest Gump n/m