OK. I just re-read your post and I stand by what I said. (BTW, did you read MY post?) I think you may be over thinking this a bit.
First, you indicated that this is an example of an oath that you would administer: "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you are Jane D. Smith, also known as JD Smith, aka Jane Smith, aka Jack Smith?" In my opinion, you are mixing up the content of the document with the oath for the jurat. Does your statement encompass the entirety of what is stated in the document? Aren't they supposed to swear that the whole thing is true?
Secondly, in your statement above, you seem to be confusing our duties as a signing agent with a notarial act. As an NSA, of course we should help people to properly complete a Name Affidavit, to use your example, including examining it carefully for accuracy. But I believe incorporating a part of the content of the document into the wording of your oath is crossing a line.
Finally, if you want to put that fine a point on the order of the words in the notarial certificate, you actually have it wrong - at least for California. Here's the current required jurat wording for the state where most of the folks in this thread are from (if memory serves):
"Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _______, 20__,
by _______________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the person(s) who appeared before me."
Cut and pasted from our Notary Handbook. If you look closely, you'll see that the "sworn to..." part comes after the "Subscribed" part...  Do I think the order matters? Not really. If someone looked it over more closely after they signed it and changed their mind, we swap out their copy or fix it, or tear it up. I don't sign and stamp until the oath is completed and I imagine that's the case for any other notary who has a clue. The content is right there for them to read at any point, so I see no deception involved, either. (It's not like we're going to grab it out of their hands once it's signed and say "gotcha"!)
Or am I just not understanding your point?
|
| Messages in this Thread |
|  I found out why the title company had to shred the -  snoopdogMs on 7/26/11 8:32am |
|  Unbelievable... n/m - Linda_H/FL on 7/26/11 8:35am |
| OMG! IMO it's too bad we're not licensed, so that some of - MW/VA on 7/26/11 8:58am |
|  Maryland requires a license, thank goodness :) n/m - BossLadyMD on 7/26/11 10:14am |
|  Re: Maryland requires a license, thank goodness :) - A S Johnson on 7/26/11 10:27am |
|  Re: Maryland requires a license, thank goodness :) - MW/VA on 7/26/11 8:57pm |
| Re: I found out why the title company had to shred the - Riley/FL on 7/26/11 9:06am |
| I've used that phrase and have no qualms about it - Linda_H/FL on 7/26/11 9:13am |
| Re: I've used that phrase and have no qualms about it - A S Johnson on 7/26/11 9:20am |
| Re: I've used that phrase and have no qualms about it - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 9:25am |
| Re: I've used that phrase and have no qualms about it - Jules/CA on 7/26/11 7:34pm |
| I would never use that phrase, it diminishes our role. - janCA on 7/26/11 9:24am |
| IMO that doesn't diminish the role if put in the proper - Linda_H/FL on 7/26/11 9:29am |
|  Re: IMO that doesn't diminish the role if put in the proper - JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 1:28pm |
| Re: I've used that phrase and have no qualms about it - Riley/FL on 7/26/11 2:12pm |
| mentoring is an absolute must, WOW! n/m - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 9:29am |
| Re: I found out why the title company had to shred the - Les_CO on 7/26/11 9:48am |
| Disagree...major reason for faxbacks is - Lee/AR on 7/26/11 10:26am |
| Re: Disagree...major reason for faxbacks is - A S Johnson on 7/26/11 10:29am |
| Re: Disagree...major reason for faxbacks is - Les_CO on 7/26/11 11:23am |
| Re: Disagree...major reason for faxbacks is - Lee/AR on 7/26/11 11:42am |
| I think I could do make that determination in 60 sec.. - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 12:13pm |
|  Re: I think I could to make that determination in 60 sec.. - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 12:15pm |
|  What really just rubbed my fur backwards was - snoopdogMs on 7/26/11 1:33pm |
|  Ouch, snoopdog! - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 1:57pm |
| Apparently, they only follow Hallmark's motto... - Lee/AR on 7/26/11 2:23pm |
| Brilliant, JD! - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 1:38pm |
| Meant to say ..... - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 1:49pm |
| Re: Meant to say ..... - JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 2:58pm |
| Re: Brilliant, JD! - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 2:02pm |
| Re: Brilliant, JD! - Lee/AR on 7/26/11 2:06pm |
|  You're hired, Lee! n/m - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 2:26pm |
|  Re: You're hired, Lee! - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 2:35pm |
|  Re: You're hired, Lee! - jba/fl on 7/26/11 5:49pm |
|  Re: You're hired, Lee! - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 6:04pm |
| Re: Brilliant, JD! - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 2:27pm |
| To Add - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 2:32pm |
| I see your point, LKT, but .... - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 2:57pm |
| Agree with GG - S Peterson on 7/26/11 3:19pm |
|  Re: Agree with GG - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 3:33pm |
|  Re: HUH?!?!?!? - S Peterson on 7/26/11 3:47pm |
| No clear cut answer, IMO - JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 3:52pm |
| Re: No clear cut answer, IMO - S Peterson on 7/26/11 4:06pm |
|  Re: No clear cut answer, IMO - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 4:28pm |
 | Re: No clear cut answer, IMO - JanetK_CA on 7/27/11 12:52am |
| GOLDGIRL is correct!! - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 4:10pm |
| That's why I say "cover yourself" As has been - S Peterson on 7/26/11 4:22pm |
| Re: GOLDGIRL is correct!! - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 4:25pm |
| the first thing I do when I come to a jurat - SheilaSJCA on 7/26/11 3:18pm |
| Perfect, Sheila!! LOL!!!! Yes, you're hired! ;>) n/m - JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 3:56pm |
| Oh boy....If you give them an oath and - Notarysigner on 7/26/11 4:14pm |
| Re: the first thing I do when I come to a jurat - LKT/CA on 7/26/11 3:58pm |
| Sheila, your reputation precedes you .... - GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/26/11 4:50pm |
| Re: Sheila, your reputation precedes you .... - SheilaSJCA on 7/26/11 6:04pm |
| Re: Disagree...major reason for faxbacks is - Les_CO on 7/26/11 2:05pm |
