Posted by Marian_in_CA on 12/31/09 5:40am
Msg #316204

Credible Witnesses and Jail...

I've never done this myself, but when I was at the local ICE detention center this weekend (nightmare!!), I met another notary who was handling credible witnesses in an interesting way. The credible witnesses lived about 40 miles away. The day before, she picked up a copy of the detainee's "camp card" -- which is ICE's official detainee ID card. It's got a photo, thumbprint, description, etc. Basically, it's just a print out from the ICE officer. The next morning, she drove to the witnesses, got their information and sworn statements, then traveled directly to the detention center to complete the notarization. This way, the witnesses did not have to travel to the jail and deal with the issues involved there.

At this center, only 2 visitors are allowed at a time, and they usually enforce it... unless you get a sympathetic sheriff. I usually have to have one come in with me, and then send them out and have the other one come in after that. It's a real pain. Once in awhile I can get them to let both CWs come in during professional visit hours.. it just depends. CWs are almost always essential at this particular center since most of these guys are facing deportation and rarely have valid ID. Much of the time, the name that ICE has for them isn't always correct, either.

I've always gone with the idea that the CWs should be present to at least identify the person signing at the time it happens.

I've gone over the handbook (CA)... and I actually don't really see it specifically noted. It's really only implied in the phrase, that the CWs must affirm that the person "appearing before the notary public as the signer of the document is the person named in the document."

If I meet just with the CWs, how can they know that the person I'm meeting with later really *will* be the person they're affirming will be signing the document? I mean, I can show them the document... even the guy's camp card.... but how can they say the physical person who WILL be signing is the same one unless they are actually there to witness it?

This notary's approach seems original at first... but I have to wonder, is it really in letter with the law?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/31/09 6:35am
Msg #316205

"If I meet just with the CWs, how can they know that the person I'm meeting with later really *will* be the person they're affirming will be signing the document"

That was my first thought - IMO the word "witness" speaks for itself - they need to see him appear before you - I'd say run it by your SOS but if you put this question to them they may question YOUR knowledge and abilities....I wouldn't do it that way.

MHO

Reply by PAW on 12/31/09 7:20am
Msg #316209

I agree with Linda. How can the CW know who is signing the document if they are not present when the document is signed? All that you have proved is that the CW swears they know someone. But there is no proof that that particular 'someone' is the person who appeared before the notary and signed the document.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/31/09 10:02am
Msg #316232

..If you go the the Calif. SOS website > contact us > email Debra Bowen you can ask your question and someone will respond back to your question and provide you a real telephone # of someone you can talk to in your area. It works, I've used it three times.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/31/09 11:06am
Msg #316246

You're amazing! Using all resources available to you.

And, I'm not be sarcastic about you, but about those who are not willing to take the time to do what you do to get the jobs done. No one in this thread, but "they" abound...

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/31/09 8:30am
Msg #316217

I have never used a CW , as in Il they must be known to

both signer and NP.
I have often wondered from this forum, exactly how the NP determines that
the witness is , in fact, "credible"
I would think that law makers intended that a CW be more than just a warm body
who says that he knows your signer and that this person is in fact the one who he knows.
Your CW may have just met the signer ten minutes ago, and just takes his word that
he is who he says he is.
How do those who use CW determine that they are , in fact, credible?
It seems to me that if the NP uses a CW, that is as good as a DL or Passport when,
in fact, the NP is just hoping that the CW is reliable and wasn't duped himself.

Reply by PAW on 12/31/09 8:44am
Msg #316219

In FL ...

The CW must know the signer as defined to be "personally known" and must sign a sworn written statement to that effect. The FL notary manual suggests the following (for using 2 credible witnesses, not known to the notary):

Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that the
person appearing before __(name of notary)__ is
personally known to me as __(name of person whose
signature is to be notarized)__ and is the person
named in the document requiring notarization; that I
believe that this person does not possess the required
identification; that I believe it would be difficult or
impossible for this person to obtain such
identification; and that I do not have a financial
interest in and am not a party to the underlying
transaction.

The manual further defines "personally known" as: "Having an acquaintance derived from association with an individual, which establishes the individual’s identity with at least a reasonable certainty."

Therefore, I submit that if a CW or two CWs are used as "identification" then the onus of identifying the principal resides with the witness, but the onus of identifying the witness is squarely the notary's responsibility. (Notaries, imo, aren't any more expert in proving identity than most people on the street.)

Reply by janCA on 12/31/09 11:02am
Msg #316243

Marian,

As far as I'm concerned, what this CA notary is doing is downright illegal. The CW's are replacing the DL, Passport, etc. They have to identify the signer of this document by being present. CW's are the last resort and I would use the ID that the prison provides. It states in the book that the individual appearing before the notary as the signer of the document is the person named in the document. How do they know that to be true if they are not present?

Reply by Dave_CA on 12/31/09 11:15am
Msg #316249

Re: Marian,

If they were in a CA Prison then you could use the Dept. of Corrections Inmate ID card BUT the wrist band used in many County jails is not acceptable. I don't know about ICE detention Centers.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/31/09 1:17pm
Msg #316270

Re: Marian, I D

I've only done one CW Notarization for an inmate. Inmate had no ID on him (Being charged in court) I used Judge (yes I got his ID) and Attorney (not so sure about the creditable part-LoL).

Honestly, with CW I establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person being identified was who the CW said they were. I asked if they knew each other for example.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/31/09 2:25pm
Msg #316292

IMO, I also think the Notary acted illegally. Because CW's are simply "walking ID's", the ID (walking or otherwise) must be presented by the signer at the time he/she is appearing before the Notary, just as they would hand you their river's license (or one of the other gov't issued allowed forms of ID). Therefore, the CW's should be present with the signer when he/she is appearing before the Notary, to attest to the signer's identity under oath and sign your journal.

I am not aware of any case where the notarial act is split - it is all done at the same time (i.e. personal appearance, ID presented, sign document, signature notarized, notarial act completed). The notarial service can be split, as in a split signing, but the notarial ACT is never split - as far as I know.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/31/09 2:27pm
Msg #316293

Driver's license

Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/31/09 5:32pm
Msg #316311

Agree - I can't see how this would hold up in court. Showing

a CW a piece of paper is not the same as showing the CW a person. It sure wouldn't convince me that even the spirit of the law was followed, let alone the letter, such as it is.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/1/10 6:00pm
Msg #316372

I agree, as well.

Plus, the journal entries need to be consecutive. What if the other notary wasn't able to get to all the other people in sequence? That's a moot point, anyway, since I, too, feel they need to see the person who is personally appearing before the notary, as the others said. Sounds like another case of someone forgetting that it's the "process" that is important, not just the end product.

Reply by Robert/FL on 1/3/10 4:33pm
Msg #316500

As others have indicated, it is certainly my opinion that a credible witness must be in the presence of the signer and the notary at the time the document is executed.

In Florida, for prisoners we can accept the sworn, written statement from a law enforcement officer that the prisoner's identification was confiscated upon confinement and that the person named in the document is the person whose signature is to be notarized.

Even in states that don't have this as an option, perhaps personnel at the institution could act as credible witnesses since they would have better knowledge as to the prisoner's identity. However, some institutions may have policies that prohibit their personnel from getting involved in prisoner notarizations. Kind of like the court clerks at the courthouse in Tampa will notarize signatures on deeds but will not witness signatures anymore. There was probably one incident that ruined it for everyone.