It looked to be in CA? based on the Jurat stamp. Boy is he clueless!!!
Reply by Ernest Adams on 12/5/07 4:00pm Msg #224488
Who was operating the video camera? (plus more questions)
Oh, sure the "notary" just decided what notarial act to perform. No problem. ?NO OATH for a jurat?! Was the "notary" supposed to be training someone? What state were they in? Why was the journal entry done last?
At least the "notary" asked for an ID. _After the notarization was done,_ of course, but at least he asked.
So that's "doing a notary", huh?r I'm so glad that I don't "do notaries"!
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/5/07 4:09pm Msg #224492
Re: Who was operating the video camera? (plus more questions)
If you double click on the video and watch it on the Youtube site, this same person has more "training"videos. This particular one was entitled "How to do a notary"
Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 4:20pm Msg #224496
That type of "training" is truly scaaaarrrrryyyyy! n/m
Reply by Gary_CA on 12/6/07 10:29am Msg #224641
You missed the biggy...
"If the customer doesn't want to fill it all in you notarize it anyway..."
Good, now I know where to send folks that ask me to do that.
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/5/07 4:13pm Msg #224494
Hmmm is right. So let's see...I decide what type of certificate is necessary, ask the signer to fill in all the blanks, but tell him it is not necessary and then I have the signer sign BEFORE I have identified him? Let's hear it for CA mandatory notary education!
Reply by Terri Garner on 12/5/07 4:28pm Msg #224498
OMG! How many errors did we find!!! Let's see:
1. UPL for UPS (hehehe) - determined the type of notarization to be performed. 2. Did not give the verbal oath for the Jurat.
Not necessarily mistakes, but I would have:
1. Verified ID before stamping anything! (Jurat Stamp or Seal) 2. Filled out Journal, got signature before completing any certificate or stamping anything.
Oh I hate that NNA journal UGH! I also noticed that in the journal, several entries above (I would have used a line on a blank page for the video) I noticed that there was one signature signed across two lines for two documents. Nope not going to happen in my journal.
I know that the NNA teaches that it's ok to get signatures like, that but I know better now.
Terri Lancaster, CA
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/5/07 4:54pm Msg #224503
He (the UPS store dude) did say "you're swearing to everything that is on there" and in Florida, that would pass as an oath. Not the way I do it, but it would pass as long as there was a verbal exchange between notary and signer indicating the signer is taking an oath. Don't know if that would fly in Cali.
Reply by Rachel/ORWA on 12/5/07 5:19pm Msg #224508
Signing across the lines is perfectly acceptable in OR.
In fact, it is illustrated in the state notary guide.
Please don't consider this a defense of the video in question, however!
Reply by CaliNotary on 12/5/07 5:25pm Msg #224512
I think it's fake
What notary gives a running commentary like this guy does? Or turns his journal toward the person so they can see exactly what he's writing in it?
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/5/07 5:29pm Msg #224514
Re: I think it's fake
It is supposed to be a training video, so yes, they would have a running commentary etc.
Reply by CaliNotary on 12/5/07 5:45pm Msg #224515
Ahhhhh n/m
Reply by CaliNotary on 12/5/07 5:46pm Msg #224516
Oops
I only watched about half of it, I figured it was some hidden camera thing to show how bad the UPS store was at notarizing documents. That is hilarious that it's their actual notary training.
Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 5:52pm Msg #224517
I, too, originally thought it was to show how bad ...
... a job is done at the typical UPS Store storefront. That's why i figured they were using a hidden camera.
For some reason, I've been receiving a nanny-cam-type catalog. Now I'm _seriously_ temped to buy a hidden camera setup and have documents notarized in storefronts. Anybody interested in putting together a best-of DVD? Kind of "Can you believe that idiot did that?" and "Wow! She followed _all_ the rules!"?
Reply by Terri Garner on 12/5/07 5:56pm Msg #224520
Re: I, too, originally thought it was to show how bad ...
Be sure that you get the "model" release for your videos
Terri Lancaster, CA
Reply by Demore on 12/5/07 6:08pm Msg #224524
Re: I, too, originally thought it was to show how bad ...
How it works to "get the "model" released for the videos?"
Reply by Terri_CA on 12/5/07 6:10pm Msg #224525
Re: I, too, originally thought it was to show how bad ...
Demore - Google is your friend
Google "Model Release" and I'm sure you'll find out.
Terri Lancaster, CA
Reply by MichiganAl on 12/5/07 8:24pm Msg #224546
Frightening. This guy makes 3 errors in the 1st 30 secs.
As far as "how to do a notary?" Take us to dinner, maybe some dancing, and get us liquored up.
Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 9:22pm Msg #224552
Dinner, yes. Liquor, yes. Dancing, no. Just call me the .
... "Notary slut".
Just kidding. Lady Rouge (she of the Red Hat) would kill me. And not with kindness.
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/5/07 10:02pm Msg #224560
Re: Anyone notice it's addressed to "God"?? n/m
Reply by mtnotary on 12/6/07 12:42pm Msg #224670
Anyone noticed that the stamp was just laying around not
under lock and key? Just readily available for anyone to use.
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/6/07 1:56pm Msg #224695
I think he took it out of the drawer at the beginning
with his journal. Not sure if the drawer was locked though.
Reply by LC/AZ on 12/6/07 3:50pm Msg #224729
Where's the comparison of signatures?
Signature on driver's license to signature in journal?
Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/6/07 4:53pm Msg #224737
It looked to me like it was a California notarization. Assuming that's correct, I noticed a total of seven errors or "problems".
1. It didn't look to me like the drawer was locked where "the" journal was kept.
2. He selected the type of notarization. (He didn't even ask any questions before he did that!) He should have explained the difference and left it to the signer to decide.
3. He said he would notarize even if the document wasn't complete. While he is right that it's in the customer's best interest, as we all know, CA clearly prohibits the notarizing of an incomplete doc.
4. The his jurat stamp did not have the required legal verbiage so the entire notarization isn't valid! It should have included the name of the signer. (The book clearly showed this was 2007; that requirement changed before this year.)
5. He says that no one fills in the address. I didn't see where this is required by CA law, but it is included in nearly every journal and I think most would agree that it is a good idea to get that information.
6. He didn't identify the signer before notarizing the document, missing the most critical part of what a notarization is for! It seemed like he entered the data into the journal just to fulfill a requirement. He also didn't go back to check the signature and didn't seem to pay any attention to see if the description matched the person.
7. He left the journal sitting open on the counter after completing the notarization, while he took care of ringing up the sale.
I feel like writing a letter to the head of UPS and sharing a piece of my mind!
Reply by Terri Garner on 12/6/07 5:35pm Msg #224752
