Posted by Bruce_CA on 9/2/08 9:20pm
Msg #262992

what do I do if law enforcement wants to seize journal?

I notarized a signature for a loan using creditable witness (Oct 06). This appears to have been a fraudulent deal (I resisted but they met all of the requirements)
I know I need to surrender it, do I get some type of reciept? Will I get the journal back?Any other things I should be aware of?

I am in CA, so I need answers for CA.

Thanks
Bruce

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 9/2/08 9:23pm
Msg #262993

Hi Bruce- I am sorry to hear that. What a hassle for you. You will get a receipt but you better ask for it, jsut in case. I think you will get the journal back, but you cannot restart using it either. So just start a new one. ( just came accross this stuff as I am studying to renew my commissionn shortly.) It is all in the handbook.

Reply by Bruce_CA on 9/2/08 9:32pm
Msg #262994

I knew I could not use it (it is retired anyways!).

Thanks for the fast reply!
Bruce

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/2/08 9:35pm
Msg #262995

CA Government Code 8206(d)

According to your handbook, the person seizing the journal better give you a receipt because that person has 24 hours to notify your SOS that your journal has been seized and provide them with certain information, including a copy of the receipt issued:

"upon request to a peace offier investigating a criminal offense who has reasonable suspicion to believe the journal contains evidence of a criminal offense, as defi ned in Sections 830.1, 830.2, and 830.3 of the Penal Code, acting in his or her offi cial capacity and within his or her authority. If the peace offi cer seizes the notary journal, he or she must have probable cause as required by the laws of this state and the United States. A peace offi cer or law enforcement agency that seizes a notary journal shall notify the Secretary of State by facsimile within 24 hours, or as soon possible thereafter, of the name of the notary public whose journal has been seized. The notary public shall obtain a receipt for the journal, and shall notify the Secretary of State by certified mail within 10 days that the journal was relinquished to a peace offi cer. The notifi cation shall include the period of the journal entries, the commission number of the notary public, the expiration date of the commission, and a photocopy of the receipt. The notary public shall obtain a new sequential journal. If the journal relinquished to a peace offi cer is returned to the notary public and a new journal has been obtained, the notary public shall make no new entries in the returned journal."

Hope this helps.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/2/08 9:49pm
Msg #262997

I'd also be reviewing the circumstances surrounding your

use of credible witnesses and make sure that you used credible witnesses within the law since it appears that many notaries aren't aequately familiar with the use of credilble witnesses. Oh, yes, remember its credible witnesses and not creditable. I am not an attorney and my opinions are not to be relied upon, for questions regarding the law please consult a licensed member of the California Bar.

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/3/08 2:23am
Msg #263011

I definitely want to hear the follow up on this one

And I'm curious about how they met all the requirements to have a credible witness used in the first place. What was so special about this situation that made it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to get a valid CA ID? Or did he mean they met all the requirements because they just didn't have any other ID on them, which is the standard so many on this board use.

Reply by MichiganAl on 9/3/08 7:08am
Msg #263015

I was thinking the same thing

It sure seems that a lot of CA notaries use credible witness when someone loses an i.d., or can't find their i.d., or doesn't have it on them as opposed to someone who finds it difficult or impossible to obtain an i.d. as the wording states.

Reply by Therese on 9/3/08 11:52am
Msg #263048

Re: Lets all remember here in California that........

Once we put the Credible Witnesses under Oath and the swear to the truth of the following statements;

1. That the individual appearing before the notary public is the signer of the documents and is the person named in the document;

2. That you the credible witness personally knows the signer;

3. That you the credible witnes reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are such that it would be vedry difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification;

4. That the signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to establish the signers identity;

5. That you the credible witness does not have a financial interest and is not named in the document signed;

and you the Notary have probably ID the 2 Credible Witnesses the liabality is that of the 2 witnesses.
It is not up to US (the notaries) to determine whether the situation is special or not. The Witnesses are taking an Oath it is up to them.

Reply by Therese on 9/3/08 11:55am
Msg #263051

Re: Civil Code 1185 n/m

Reply by Carmen/123 on 9/3/08 12:23pm
Msg #263056

Re: Lets all remember here in California that........

Thank you Terese. I am so glad that you posted this. I was going to post the same thing but you beat me to it. . Many folks don't seem to really get this credible witness stuff. As you have pointed out the CW has to reasonably believe that the signer cannot get ID. This is their burden not ours.

Carmen

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/3/08 12:51pm
Msg #263061

Question...

So you have a signer who says to you "my license is still in my maiden name - I haven't had a chance to change it yet" - or "my license expired and I haven't had it renewed yet"...or "I left my license at home"....your CW's are going to swear that it's "difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain ID" - your signer has just admitted it's not difficult or impossible - they just haven't done it or have forgotten to bring it - and that makes your notarizing the CW's statements okay? It's okay for CA notaries to notarize a statement that you know contains false information?

Further, any normal document signer wouldn't say "I don't have ID but I have two credible witnesses"....that's the notary's determination to make as to whether to use them or not - determine if the ID is proper and, if not, look for alternatives - the notary will be the party introducing the feasibility of using CW's...so IMO it IS their call as to whether or not the situation meets the standards to qualify for use of CW's.

Just MHO and curiosity.

Reply by Therese on 9/3/08 5:26pm
Msg #263108

Re: Question...

Hi Linda, your questions are certainly valid and are ones I have raised in the past directed to my SOS. In the case of a client not renewing or waiting for their hard DL/ID SOS states it would be deemed very difficult for the signer to obtain ID a the time of the requested notarization putting Credible Witnesses under oath would not be accepting a false statement.

Way back when I had a client that needed something to be notarized that day. They had an expired ID and the Temp. Renewal Paper. I called the SOS and spoke with the supervisor. He told me that CW would be ok because the document needed to be notarized that day and it would be very difficult for the hard ID to be available. Just an example and yes I know it all depends on who you talk to there but keeping notes and records can only help your case if ever questioned.

When clients don't have ID they usually ask what can they do and we tell them the options. Credible Witnesses being one of them. They may choose this option.

I am sure each case warrants it own merits. The handbook is clear on who is making the determination.
I am not an attorney, do not use what I print as legal advice.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/3/08 5:41pm
Msg #263111

Agree with Therese

IMHO, the issue is the HERE and NOW with respect to the appointment. A useless ID (expired and issued past 5 years, more info on docs than on license, name on license is Liz but on docs it's Elizabeth, etc. ) is NO ID AT ALL. If they cannot produce an alternate ID....... RIGHT THEN, RIGHT THERE at the appointment, credible witnesses are in order if they can get them and the CW's meet the requirements (have ID, are not named in doc or have a financial interest in the doc).

Regardless of what the customer reveals....can they produce another ID HERE and NOW? Whether or not they can go to the DMV next Thursday to renew their license is of no consequence to the appointment TODAY.....right HERE, right NOW.....This is my opinion.

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/3/08 8:40pm
Msg #263134

Re: Agree with Therese

If they cannot produce an alternate ID....... RIGHT THEN, RIGHT THERE at the appointment, credible witnesses are in order:

So then why does the state bother to list 5 criteria that must be met in order to use credible witnesses? If it's really just an option to be used for any old reason, wouldn't they just include it in the list of acceptable IDs?

That they didn't do it that way, and that they made a point of listing it separately with a list of criteria that must be met in order to use CW's tells me that they didn't just mean "you can use them if the person doesn't have any ID on them RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. It tells me that they are only to be used in rare circumstances.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/3/08 9:28pm
Msg #263140

Cali...I was very specific in what I wrote

<<<If it's really just an option to be used for any old reason...... "you can use them if the person doesn't have any ID on them>>>

Nowhere in my post did I say or imply either of those concepts. I specifically said if the customer has a useless ID, they have NO ID....if they have no ID then I cannot complete the notarizations. The CW's are a last resort. The handbook speaks to CW's being used if it would be difficult or impossible to obtain alternate ID. It does not specify WHEN, however, during the appointment is when the alternate ID is needed. What the signer can do about ID next Wednesday doesn't help either of us AT THE APPOINTMENT. Therefore, if RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, they cannot produce the alternate ID....then CW is the only option left. I stand by my position.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/3/08 6:38pm
Msg #263118

Thanks Therese & Lisa....

I guess I understand and need to remember that CA is a different animal - we here don't get "temporary renewals" - we get hard DL's immediately (or hard state ID cards)...I just find that many people tend to loosely interpret the CW rule...to me use of a CW should not be automatic and the guidelines for its use should be followed - and many times it's not..MHO

Reply by Therese on 9/3/08 6:58pm
Msg #263123

Re: Thanks Therese & Lisa....

Your very welcome Linda. It again is one of those Notarial Law areas that can be of gray matter.
What may seem very difficult for some may not be seen so difficult for another. I wish these laws would be written more literal. But I can only do that when I blow out my B.day candles. Have a good one.

Reply by jba/fl on 9/3/08 8:26pm
Msg #263129

Linda, if I renew online, late for ex, I only have a

receipt until 2-7 days later when I get new ID or ID sticker in mail.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/3/08 8:33pm
Msg #263131

Okay...mea culpa...never gave a thought to online

renewals...have never done that and it never occurred to me...

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 9/2/08 11:07pm
Msg #263005

If the journal is surrendered, the notary must obtain a receipt for the journal and notify the Sec of State within 10 days by certified mail that the journal was relingquished to a peace officer.

The notification must include:
1. the period of journal entries
2. the commission number the notary public
3. the expiration date of the commission
4. and a photocopy of the receipt

If that journal is later returned, the notary may not make any additional entries in that journal.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/2/08 11:41pm
Msg #263007

Make sure the receipt isn't a flimsy one with just the date, the word "journal" and a chicken scratched signature. The officer to whom you're surrenduring it to should have his printed name and office number, including precinct.....whether you delivered it or he picked it up should be notated on the receipt......

Not required but I would still get all of that.....just me

Reply by Stamper_WI on 9/3/08 8:10am
Msg #263016

Interesting. WI just says we need the written consent of the person requesting the notarization. Technical details are a 3rd party (TC or SS) are the ones requesting) and 2 if the person is being investigated doesn't want to consent because they have committed fraud, they won't. I fired that off to the SOS. I am guessing that 3rd party posession of the journal would require a subpeona.
Side note: Wi does not require you to keep a journal.

Reply by Bruce_CA on 9/3/08 11:00am
Msg #263033

Well, WI may not require a journal, but this is a case I am GLAD CA does reuire a journal! It may be a little harder on me, and I may not be 100% sure what to do (I was correct in what I thought, but just a little panic stricken, and I wanted to get better suggestions, then just the letter of the law) This is a case where the CROOK is gonna be able to be PROVEN guilty, as I have his finger print!

I am not worried about myself, as I do keep a good journal, I am consistant.

It is a requirement of CA that if requested by a peace officer for the investiagating of a crime, that the journal be surrendered(sp?) with out requiring a subpeona.

I do hope you do keep a journal, as even though it is a "little" more hassle, it does give the law a peice of evidence when people DO try to commit a crime.

Lets get the damn crooks off or the streets!

Thanks for all of the valueble input from everybody! Both in the formu and private emails.

Cheers,

Bruce

Reply by Sharon Taylor on 9/3/08 11:04am
Msg #263035

Entire journal? Not just they photocopy pertinent pages?

I would be very very unhappy at surrendering my entire journal. What if a question or issue came up regarding any of the other closings you have recorded in it? Your journal is such a critical record for several transactions, not just this one, that you should not have to surrender the entire thing. OR you should at least photocopy the entire thing for your own records before you have to hand it over.
I too would be interested in the progress of this matter. Thanks for posting about it.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 9/3/08 5:10pm
Msg #263102

Re: Entire journal? Not just they photocopy pertinent pages?

Good point Sharon, that would be ironic to have some one else request info, and your journal is at the police dept! This new law took affect in JAN.08 here in CA...so it may be a work in progress. It does seem to be overkill, to have to turn over the entire journal.

Reply by Dave_CA on 9/3/08 5:10pm
Msg #263103

Re: Entire journal? Not just they photocopy pertinent pages?

CA now requires the entire journal be surrendered in certain circumstances.
It is being surrendered to a Law Enforcement officer and I'm sure another officer or the court could obtain it if necessary for another case.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 9/3/08 5:26pm
Msg #263107

Re: Entire journal? Not just they photocopy pertinent pages?

yes, but what if a private person requests a copy of a line item?

Reply by Bruce_CA on 9/3/08 7:04pm
Msg #263125

I want to thank you all for your responses! It is funny that this is one of the signings I never got paid for... SS was Shawna Owens (LLDS) <gring and some times, you DO need to bear it!>

Bruce

Reply by NJ_Notary on 9/3/08 8:46pm
Msg #263136

A scary thought about New Jersey...

In NJ journals are not required. I wish they were, but they arent. Great notaries in NJ utlize them; however, I often wonder about the notaries who dont. What would happen if this situation was in NJ with the fraudulent deal and no journal was in place? It reaaaalllyy makes a person stop and think and wonder.