Posted by lyndie on 12/10/11 3:48pm
Msg #406235

Being a witness...i think not!

I had a two signature job this morning for an Mr. and Mrs. G, an elderly couple whose son is in jail. It was a surety bond. I noticed one of the forms called for me to sign as a witness, and upon calling NNA and asking them about it, they said i cannot be a witness and notarize signatures for the same document. NNA suggested they get a neighbor to be the witness. And so the signer proceeded to get the neighbor, and wanted her notarized too.
The signer Mr. G. is insisting that I was supposed to sign as a witness, and that the courts will probably not accept the document. Now I am wondering if NNA did not give the correct advice. I notarized both signatures for the couple, and hopefully that is enough. Any thoughts anyone?

Reply by HisHughness on 12/10/11 3:54pm
Msg #406236

You can notarize a signer's signature and be a witness UNLESS the witness's signature must also be notarized. The notary not being a witness will not invalidate a document, assuming that all witness requirements are met.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 10:32am
Msg #406268

I have to admit that I don't like being a witness and the notary; it seems ridiculous to me.

But, I believe that Hugh and Linda are right.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 11:07am
Msg #406269

<<<But, I believe that Hugh and Linda are right. >>>

They're right for *their* states - only.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/11/11 11:25am
Msg #406272

"They're right for *their* states - only. "...no

It's right from a common sense perspective and a legal perspective PROVIDING THAT there is no law specifically precluding the notary from also acting as a witness (think AZ). However, it's also right that being a witness to a document does not render you a party to the doc and does not mean you're NAMED in the doc.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 11:48am
Msg #406274

Re: "They're right for *their* states - only. "...no

<<<....common sense perspective and a legal perspective.....>>>

Those can and ARE sometimes diametrically opposed. CA allows a work ID for a city/state/government employee to be used provided they have the required photo, description, serial number, and signature. That's LEGAL.

A customer (from northern CA who is a government employee) is in southern Cali and calls me for a notarization. He/she presents their work ID which has all of the elements. We meet at McDonalds. I have no ID guidebook of government entities, thus no way of knowing if that ID looks like what it's SUPPOSED to look like and if such a government entity even exists.

Now how much COMMON SENSE is in that law? Whose bright idea was it to dream up that law? How much COMMON SENSE is it to expect Notaries to KNOW what these IDs are SUPPOSED to look like? Let's not go there with "common sense" and what "legal".

A poster in the discussion said it is illegal for their state to be a witness and notarize the signer in the same doc. So I'll repeat my statement: They're right for THEIR states - ONLY. And you may NOT be right for California - contrary to what's being done already.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/11/11 12:07pm
Msg #406276

Give it up, Linda. She's never going to concede.

It makes no sense to me to impose restrictions on myself -- and thus on people seeking my services -- if those restrictions are not explicitly or implicitly embodied in the law and do not raise the possibility of imposing some form of liability on me.

An earlier discussion pertained to whether a notary should provide or even sell legal forms. I think doing that, even if allowed as under Florida law, holds the possibility of liability for the notary, so I would avoid doing it. Notarizing and then witnessing a signature on a document holds no such potential. Absent some statutory prohibition, why would I NOT provide that service to my clients? It just makes no sense to me to limit what I can do for my clients simply because I have concocted some sort of fanciful restriction out of whole cloth.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 12:13pm
Msg #406277

I agree with you Hugh. n/m

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/11/11 12:21pm
Msg #406280

Re: I agree with you Hugh.

All of what we have here today are interpatations. It's the job of a judge to interpate the law.

Hugh is correct, there is nothing in the handbook that says we cannot be a witness as long as we don't have an interest in the transaction or all the requirements of a witness are met.

It was said here to err on the side of caution, but just because it's not spelled out exactly for every situation, you are going to refuse!!! If every situation we could possibly encounter was spelled out for us in the handbook, we would have a set of encyclopedias.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:48pm
Msg #406294

Re: Give it up, Linda. She's never going to concede.

<<<It makes no sense to me to impose restrictions on myself--......It just makes no sense to me to limit what I can do for my clients simply because I have concocted some sort of fanciful restriction out of whole cloth.>>>

HUH?? LOL!!! How is "Refrain from a procedure, get clarity, THEN move forward when you KNOW ...." how is that "imposing restrictions"? OMG!!!

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/10/11 4:34pm
Msg #406239

<<<....and upon calling NNA and asking them about it, they said i cannot be a witness and notarize signatures for the same document.>>>

THAT IS CORRECT!!! Don't know about other states, but a CA notary Public cannot notarize a document they are named in or have a financial interest in. If you sign as a witness in a document, you are named in that document, and therefore, cannot notarize it. You can be one OR the other but not both **for the same document**.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/10/11 4:49pm
Msg #406242

Disagree...being a witness to a document is not the same

as being named in the document.

Reply by lyndie on 12/10/11 5:08pm
Msg #406243

Re: Disagree...being a witness to a document is not the same

I think LindaH is hitting upon the issue at hand here. This could have been a situation where I was asked to be a witness to another document, not the document in front of me...the one they were actually signing. So my question is, can you sign as a witness in this situation?
I am new so forgive me if I am sounding clueless, but notarizing is more complicated than it seems I am finding.

Reply by Dennis_IN on 12/10/11 5:09pm
Msg #406244

Re: Disagree...being a witness to a document is not the same

I had a job today where one document required 2 witnesses and I told them I could not be a witness because I had to notarize their signature. Another document they had required 2 witnesses but I was not notarizing their signatures. I could have been a witness on the 2nd doc but I wasn't needed. I don't like to sign as a witness.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/10/11 9:10pm
Msg #406253

Re: Disagree...being a witness to a document is not the same

In some cases, Linda, the witness is not *just* signing their name <per se>....they are also signing to a witness *statement* as the witness which is why I would not risk any question/hint of impropriety in the eyes of those who fund a transaction by wearing two different hats within the SAME document.

One *hat* per document.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/10/11 6:14pm
Msg #406246

If you notarize a signature on a document, you are neither named in the document nor do you have an interest in the underlying transaction. The document would be binding, though perhaps not recordable, even without the notarial certification. Nothing in the law bars you from being a witness if the witness's signature is not to be notarized.

Think about it: Fundamentally, that's the service that a notary public performs. He/she is the <witness> for the signature on the document. A witness does the same thing.

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/10/11 10:50pm
Msg #406259

Lisa had a great take on this thread.
We have had differing of opinions and it's been a good discussion.

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/12/11 11:45am
Msg #406345

<upon calling NNA and asking them about it.....>>

Someone mentioned interpretation, and I agree, its all about how the NNA rep interpreted the CA law.

Not reading the actual CA law full, and going off from the OP, my understanding of that CA law is the notary can not act as a witness IF the notary is a named party within the actual document (a party to the document) which will result or give them a financial or beneficial interest. The notary could not then act as an impartial party and notarize the sigs.

What is the problem with the notary acting as a witness to the document, if they are ONLY acting as a witness, and not named within the instrument itself? Am I missing something here?

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/10/11 6:35pm
Msg #406249

Unless the law has changed since I moved...

As far as I can remember, it has been legal in the past, for a CA notary to be a witness for a document signing as long as the notary's sig doesn't have to be notarized.. Check your handbook. In AZ we notaries are specifically prohibited from acting as a notary and a witness on the same document.

Reply by John Tennant on 12/10/11 9:24pm
Msg #406255

A California notary can be a witness

as well as be the notary on the document. I notarize Florida documents that require two witnesses of which I can be one. Check the Ca. handbook.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/11/11 8:02am
Msg #406262

Ditto, both John and Shoshana!

You just can't have a financial interest.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 10:06am
Msg #406266

Re: Unless the law has changed since I moved...

<<<As far as I can remember, it has been legal in the past, for a CA notary to be a witness for a document signing as long as the notary's sig doesn't have to be notarized..>>>

Handbooks back to the year 2005 are on the SOS website. Therefore, your statement is base on what Civil/Gov. code?

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/11/11 12:26pm
Msg #406282

<<<your statement is base on what Civil/Gov. code?>>>

And what civil/gov code is your statements based upon?

Lisa, a notary IS a paid witness.
I'm in agreement with the rest of the experienced notaries here:
If you aren't named, not financially benefitted, the notary can be a witness.
Since it's not addressed in the CA notary Statutes/Handbook, I don't REALLY understand
your firm and inflexible stand on the issue.

Show us the code/statute!

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:22pm
Msg #406287

Re: <<<your statement is base on what Civil/Gov. code?>>>

<<<Lisa, a notary IS a paid witness.>>>

No kidding! I guess you didn't read (or glossed over) where I showed what's required by a notary (REQUIRE ID, communication with signer, etc.) as opposed to a regular witness (NONE of that is required).....

<<<Show us the code/statute!>>>

Done already....reread my posts.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/11/11 4:27pm
Msg #406308

<<<Show us the code/statute!>>>

I have read and reread your posts, but do not find a CA code or statute that you've supplied.
Please repost that code/statute or at least the message number.
I am most interested in seeing what CA says about this.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/11/11 4:40pm
Msg #406309

Nevermind, I read the codes and you're out of gas

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-handbook-2011.pdf

There is absolutely NOTHING in the CA gov/civil codes that prohibits a notary from being a witness to a transaction that he/she is also the notary, except if the notary:

is named in the document
has a financial interest in the document

Reply by MW/VA on 12/10/11 7:57pm
Msg #406250

I don't know about CA, but in VA I can sign as both

witness & notary. To me it is redundant, since notaries witness a signature. VA is not a "witness" state, and many docs don't require the 2 witnesses that some states require.
There are some states like FL & GA that require witnesses on some docs, and I can sign as both witness & notary in those situations as well.
BTW, I would be careful about accepting NNA as the final authority on notary law. I purchased their Virginia Notary Law Primer & it was full of incorrect information.
Your best bet is to get the CA notary Law & know it & keep it handy for reference in situations like this.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/10/11 9:16pm
Msg #406254

Re: I don't know about CA, but in VA I can sign as both

Page 10 of the Ca handbook addresses the issue. However, I may have interpreted incorrectly as I do see Linda's point of being named in the document vs. a witnesses name just being "on" the document as a witness but not a principal. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's better to just wear one hat per document.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 12:47am
Msg #406260

Turning down the job for that reason could get you

into hot water. Just check with the SOS.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 9:44am
Msg #406263

And Doing Something Against

....notarial law can also get you in hot water, Shoshanna. It's always better to er on the side of caution until there's clarity on an issue.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 10:03am
Msg #406265

Seems like you always need to have the last word.

As I suggested, call the SOS for clarification.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 10:11am
Msg #406267

Seems like you have a problem with constructive debate.

If you post, there's a high probability that you will get a response. That's the way it works on forums.

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/10/11 10:46pm
Msg #406258

I just read and re read page 10 of the California handbook. Page 10 addreeses Conflict of Interest and I can't find anything that says a notary can't be a witness.

I believe the witness signature line on docs are refering to someone witnessing the signature and I don't see why the notary can't do that in addition to notarizing.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 10:03am
Msg #406264

Page 10 of the handbook does not address the notary being a witness - it addresses a notary notarizing a signature for which the notary is named in the document and the document is of a financial matter. The OP said the doc in question is a surety bond. Linda H/FL alluded to something important - being named in the document (as a principal) or named "on" the document (name just somewhere "on" the document) just as a witness without being a principal party to the transaction.

The handbook isn't clear about notarieswearing their "witness" hat. Wearing our "notary" hat, we witness signatures, YES, which REQUIRES identifying the signer, ensuring the signer is signing of their own free will and knows what they're signing. Plus there's clear communication with the signer. Wearing the "witness" hat, none of that is a *requirement*.

Also, witnesses sometimes sign their names under a witness statement. Does that involve the witness in the document when their signature is made to a declaration? Don't know....but until I DO know, then I'll refrain from wearing two hats on the same document until I get clarity.

And that's really the key: Those that have being wearing two hats on the same doc - do you KNOW that notarial law is clear and gives the Okay - or do you ASSUME because the issue is silent or because you've just always done it? A simple issue may not be as simple you've been led to believe. You'd better KNOW that it's lawful to wear two hats on the same doc and not assume.

**I** will continue to er on the side of caution until I KNOW. What other notaries do is between them, the document and their SOS (or whoever governs notaries in their state). JMHO

Reply by lyndie on 12/11/11 11:20am
Msg #406270

LKT, this is why I proceeded the way i did, although I am not sure if it was correct or acceptable. I had to be cautious even though it means i may have to go back to the signers to redo, according to the instructions of the original document maker. Of course i wanted to satisfy the signer, and do a good job, but alas, there may be a valuable lesson in this for me. I'll find out Monday or may never hear from them again.....and I also learned a lot from all the responses.

Thank you!

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 11:23am
Msg #406271

If i were you....

I would call the SOS office first thing tomorrow morning. If they complain to the SOS, you could be in deep doodoo if you are wrong!

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 11:51am
Msg #406275

Exactly Lyndie!! Excellent call on your part!! You did the RIGHT thing by not proceeding until YOU are sure. By all means get clarity from the SOS and/or an attorney. And know that you will never be in deep "anything" for being cautious and NOT committing a possible unlawful procedure.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 11:38am
Msg #406273

TO LYNDIE and other new Notaries

This board (and other forums) are great resources, great places to get advice, share the trials and triumphs of being a Notary, share funny stories, or share serious or heartwarming stories, get tips & advice, give tips & advice and a whole list of other benefits Notary Rotary has.

There is a wealth of experience, knowledge and wisdom to be gotten here. Sometimes the discussion can be very polarized, heated, or controversial but in the midst of it all there is still something to be gleaned from each poster that contributes to the discussions. Opinions and experience will vary greatly here and on other forums.

We all live in different types of locales - city, mountains, very rural, etc. which is why "one fee does not fit all". A Notary who is very rural with few other notary competitors, charges differently than a Notary in a congested city where there's competition around every corner. Their minimum drive could be 45 minutes or more. City Notaries have their issues too. Point A to point B could take 30 minutes on Tuesday at 10am, whereas that same distance in rush hour traffic on Friday at 7pm could take two or more hours. Parking fees and tolls throw another wrench into it. Lots of variations - too many to count or compare.

When it comes to notary law - ensure that YOU know what the rules are for your state. No one except YOU will answer for your actions. YOU and only YOU will answer to the SOS or a judge. All notary laws are state specific, therefore, what is lawful in your state may not be lawful in another and vice versa. If you're ever unsure about a procedure, if you're able to make calls (to the SOS, your attorney, another Notary you trust) and get answers on the spot then by all means do so. If you are not, then er on the side of caution because **that will be your defense.**

If you do a procedure that you do not KNOW is lawful - you have no defense. There's nothing you can say before a judge to account for why you moved forward on what you did not KNOW was right. You "believed".....or you "thought".....or so-and-so on Notary Rotary forum said......NONE OF THAT WILL CUT IT before a judge. You DO have accountability when you can say you refrained from something so as not to move forward and unknowingly commit an illegal act.

If you refuse to do a procedure for a customer because YOU are unsure, they'll find another notary to do it. They may or may not complain to the SOS. If they do, and you were wrong and the procedure was in fact lawful, you're defense is, you weren't sure it was lawful and had no way of finding out on the spot so you were being cautious. Who'd fault you for trying to do the right thing?

Now on the other hand if you fail to notarize for a customer, and they find another notary to do it and you were right (the procedure was unlawful) then it's that OTHER notary who must answer to the SOS and/or face a judge and answer for why they committed an illegal procedure and they're "I didn't know it was illegal" is no defense. The judge will say they shouldn't have moved forward if they didn't KNOW.

Er on the side of caution when YOU are unsure, and don't do any procedure for which you do not KNOW is lawful and for which you cannot give accountability to the SOS or before a judge. KNOW your state's notary rules/regulations/law for YOURSELF.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/11/11 12:15pm
Msg #406278

To LISA and other experienced notaries

Be sure, when you say that something is unlawful, that you are not relying on a misaprehension of the law; that you are not advising on the basis of what you have long considered to be correct, but which in fact has no foundation in law.

And always keeps in mind that your goal should be to assist a client with his/her legitimate aims, not to place fancied obstacles in the way.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/11/11 12:50pm
Msg #406283

..and not be guilty of UPL on this forum hehe n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:43pm
Msg #406292

Re: ..and not be guilty of UPL on this forum hehe

How is saying, "Don't do something until you're sure" UPL??

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:33pm
Msg #406289

Re: To LISA and other experienced notaries

<<,And always keeps in mind that your goal should be to assist a client with his/her legitimate aims, not to place fancied obstacles in the way.>>>

And always keep in mind that my FIRST goal and duty is to comply with the the law, period. And if I'm not sure something is lawful, I refrain, UNTIL I HAVE CLARITY. I don't blanketly make up obstacles for the sake of obstacles - if I didn't want to be a Notary, trust me, I WOULDN'T BE!!

You're delusional if you think I make up rules to NOT serve the client. My entire point, which everyone BUT LYNDIE - a newbie might I add - missed, is this: If you are not sure of a procedure, don't do it until you ARE sure. Plane and simple!! WOWWWW!!!!!! Lyndie got it and NONE of the rest of you experienced notaries and (an attorney) got it. FRIGHTENING to say the least.

The OPs post showed she was not sure of whether to proceed. I say - and ALWAYS say - when in doubt, don't do it - until you're able to get clarity - as YOU will answer to the SOS and/or a judge for your actions.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/11/11 3:51pm
Msg #406305

To LISA and other experienced notaries: Part II

***And if I'm not sure something is lawful, I refrain, UNTIL I HAVE CLARITY.***

Are you sure that you are not supposed to sign your name in all capital letters on notarial certifications? That you are not supposed to sign under the signature line instead of above it? That you should not apply your seal at a 30-degree angle? Until you have absolute CLARITY that those things are not required, then you should refrain from notarizing anything.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/12/11 12:32am
Msg #406320

Re: To LISA and other experienced notaries

"My entire point... is this: If you are not sure of a procedure, don't do it until you ARE sure."

LIsa, there is nothing about what I quoted from your statement above that I would disagree with. And I think it is good advice. However, this isn't what I understood from your earlier statements. You said that "they're right for their states only" which to me is the same as saying that it's wrong in all other states. So perhaps some of this disagreement could be chalked up to semantics?

As for the witnessing issue, I don't believe there's anything in CA notary law that prevents a notary from also acting as a witness on any document, notarized or otherwise. When a completely unrelated person witnesses a document for a principal - on a will, for example - typically instructions will state that the person not be related to the principal. To me, that doesn't implicate the witness in the content of the document in any way. And I think the same would apply for the notary.

I do it fairly regularly under the direct supervision of an attorney. This guy is as meticulous as they come and some of his estate plan docs for have both of us witnessing and me notarizing. And I've always heard that there's no problem in CA with a notary also serving as a witness. I think some of you might just be over-thinking this a tad.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/12/11 6:41am
Msg #406321

Witnesses to Wills (Texas, for example.)


In Texas a self-proving affidavit is normally used on wills; it is notarized. The language in the certificate refers to the witnesses. I would not act as a witness on a will if I also notarized the self-proving affidavit.

Janet did NOT say that a notary would notarize something like this, but I just wanted to share this as an example of when one could not act as a notary and a witness. Seemed like a good place to hang it.

Do the experts agree?


THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF ________________

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ______________________________________________________________, ______________________________________________________________, and ______________________________________________________________, known to me to be the testator and the witnesses, respectively, whose names are subscribed to the annexed or foregoing instrument in their respective capacities, and, all of said persons being by me duly sworn, the said ______________________________________________________________, testator, declared to me and to the said witnesses in my presence....[snip]

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 1:33pm
Msg #406284

Re: TO LYNDIE and other new Notaries

Notaries warn other notaries all of the time about those Perry Mason vs. Notary who made an error "gotcha" moments and the theoretical judges who slam down their gavels and say, "Agreed, Mr. Mason! That notary made an error! Case dismissed! Take the notary into custody and the district attorney will file the appropriate charges today! No bail!"

But, alas, those moments of trapping a good notary who made an error never come.

What is up with that?


PS: That is not to say that it couldn't...just saying....

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:37pm
Msg #406290

Re: TO LYNDIE and other new Notaries

<<<Notaries warn other notaries all of the time about those Perry Mason vs. Notary who made an error "gotcha" moments and the theoretical judges who slam down their gavels and say, "Agreed, Mr. Mason! But, alas, those moments of trapping a good notary who made an error never come.>>>

Until it does, in deed come, one day, Brenda. Will YOU be there in court to back the notary in their defense?

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 2:43pm
Msg #406293

You've misquoted me by omission. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:55pm
Msg #406297

Re: You've misquoted me by omission.

Now that's a FIRST! Misquoting by ommission....I believe I copied and pasted your exact words. What I did not copy and paste wasn't relevant to my response. Apparently "refrain from a procedure until you KNOW" isn't registering EXCEPT with Lyndie, who is the OP and who wasn't sure which is why she posed the question in the first place. Since I know SHE got it...stick a fork in me, I'M DONE !!

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 3:01pm
Msg #406299

You left off the last line, I believe. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 3:05pm
Msg #406301

Re: You left off the last line, I believe.

No, I quoted full sentences. The last three sentences in your first paragraph were not relevant to my response, therefore, I did not include them.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 12:17pm
Msg #406279

Lyndie, look at the bright side...

Should you have a problem, at least your E&O will cover you in this instance. Since, Lisa is not an attorney she cannot guarantee that you will not get in trouble. When it comes to things like this, the court could hold you responsible. Not saying they will, but if they want to make an example of you, they could chop your head off.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/11/11 12:25pm
Msg #406281

"at least your E&O will cover you in this instance"-will it?

And now we move to another whole issue...

The ability or choice to act as both a witness and a notary - is that decision truly covered by E&O? E&O affords coverage for notarial errors - IMO I do not believe the E&O covers actions as a witness to a transaction.

JMO

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 2:14pm
Msg #406285

Re: "at least your E&O will cover you in this instance"-will it?

She is not acting as a signing agent. It is a notary error and was not done with malice or intent to defraud. It's a simple honest notarial error.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:18pm
Msg #406286

Re: "at least your E&O will cover you in this instance"-will it?

How do you figure being a witness - like an average citizen - is a "notary" error?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/11/11 2:30pm
Msg #406288

I disagree....her being a witness has nothing to do with

her being a notary - I do not think it's a notary error.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:41pm
Msg #406291

Re: Lyndie, look at the bright side...

<<Since, Lisa is not an attorney she cannot guarantee that you will not get in trouble. When it comes to things like this, the court could hold you responsible.>>

Responsible for what....NOT committing an illegal procedure when one is UNSURE of whether it was legal? Puh-leez !!!

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/11/11 2:51pm
Msg #406295

This thread motivated me..to put the xmas lights up outside!

..And now I'm done.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/11/11 2:54pm
Msg #406296

Re: This thread motivated me..to put the xmas lights up outside!

Is that because you wanted to see the bright side? LOL!

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 3:01pm
Msg #406300

It has motivated me to go out for dog food and people food. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 3:07pm
Msg #406302

It has motivated me to get a bite to eat...

as I'm starving....then tackle a few errands.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/11/11 3:21pm
Msg #406303

Agree...debate is hard work. I'm really leaving now. n/m

Reply by Mike Goodey on 12/11/11 4:24pm
Msg #406307

Re: This thread motivated me..to put the xmas lights up outside!

Sorry to see you left out christmas in your response.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/11/11 2:57pm
Msg #406298

Check your P/M (private message) n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/11/11 5:12pm
Msg #406310

Lisa - you have said about 25 times that you wont do it

until you have "clarity"... Please call your SOS Monday and they will undoubtedly tell you that there is no problem signing as a witness. Then you will have your "clarity". Common sense has a role here. If your state had such a strange law as to prohibit notaries from signing as witnesses this would surely be in your handbook. The paranoia of UPL and conflict of interest on this board sounds like NNA propaganda.

Police do not have divisions looking for notary violations. Laws in common law states are intended to be interpreted liberally until interpreted by a court.

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/12/11 11:00am
Msg #406341

NNA NOT a credible source for correct notary advice...IMO n/m