That's what I was talking about the other day. The concept of "very difficult or impossible" is only noted when it relates to the CW themselves and what they "reasonably believe" to be true and are willing to swear to under oath. That determination is not up to the notary -- and nowhere in the statutes or the handbook (that I can find) does it give that right to the notary.
My argument is that "very difficult or impossible" is a relative/subjective idea. It can means various things to each person. The NOTARY may think that it would be easy or even possible to get the proper ID... but again, (in CA) it's not the notary's job to make that determination. It's the notary's job to make sure the CW is clear about the things they are swearing to. If the CW still agrees to the oath after that... the notary's job is done and the responsibility lies with the CW who took the oath.
And, in the case of this educational workbook... which is officially approved by the SOS Notary Division... it appears that their interpretation is much looser than many notaries here.
Most notaries here would likely tell Irene that she couldn't use a CW because she did have ID... and therefore a CW is not an option. From what I'm reading in their publication, this is an incorrect practice... and that we should allow it if she has a CW willing to swear, under oath, that the CW believes it would be very difficult or impossible to obtain another form of ID.
Do I personally agree with it???? Hmmm.... not so much. But... it seems to me that if the SOS says it is a lawful request, and we refuse it... then we're putting our commissions at risk for refusing a lawful request. |
