Posted by James Dawson on 2/24/11 5:35pm
Msg #374080

S O S Calif POSTED ON Website today that


Customer Alert - Online Notarization Services Are Not Legal In California

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/24/11 5:42pm
Msg #374081

HIP HIP HOORAY !!! WEEE HEEEEEEEE!

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/customer-alert.htm

Reply by James Dawson on 2/24/11 5:51pm
Msg #374082

Re: HIP HIP HOORAY !!! WEEE HEEEEEEEE!

Thank you LKT, I was so excited for our state taking action that I forgot to post the link! Yahoo!

Reply by CH2inCA on 2/24/11 6:01pm
Msg #374087

This part says it all...

"A video image or other form of non-physical representation is not a personal appearance in front of a notary public under current state or federal laws. "

FEDERAL LAWS...!

nuf said.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/24/11 6:08pm
Msg #374088

See Copperheads Post Below 374033

I wrote an email to the VA Governor giving my 2 cents. I encourage ALL Notaries Public (no matter what state you're commissioned in) to click on the link Copperhead provided and speak out against webcam notarization.

Reply by James Dawson on 2/24/11 6:21pm
Msg #374091

Re: See Copperheads Post Below 374033

Done!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/24/11 6:50pm
Msg #374092

Way to Go Debra Bowen!

I'm usually not much of a fan... but it sounds like they really listened us this time. With California making such a clear stand, other states are bound to take notice.

Also important to note is the part about electronic notarization --- there have been some people who claim that electronic notarizations (no paper involved) are illegal in CA. They aren't... and this message states that as well:

"California notaries public are authorized under current law to perform electronic notarizations as long as all the requirements for a traditional paper-based notarial act are met, including the use of a seal for all but two specific documents used in real estate transactions."

I have an e-seal and I use it all the time... but this is NOT the same as the webcam notarizations. Electronic notarizations still require everything, it's just the the documents themselves are all handled electronically.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/24/11 6:55pm
Msg #374093

Re: Way to Go Debra Bowen!

I "liked" NN just long enough to post this to their facebook page. Now I need a shower.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/24/11 7:47pm
Msg #374103

ROFLMAO!!! (But I add my kudos to Ms. Bowen!) n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/24/11 7:51pm
Msg #374104

Re: ROFLMAO!!! (But I add my kudos to Ms. Bowen!)

BTW, for those that aren't aware... Ms. Bowen is actually running for Congress. She announced on 2/16 that she plans to run for the seat being vacated by Jane Harman in Southern California.

The rest of my views on this belong on another tab. LOL!

Reply by James Dawson on 2/24/11 8:26pm
Msg #374111

Re: Way to Go Debra Bowen!

Don't forget that one of our own, who posted here was able to express the concerns of notaries, including members of this forum.

I would like to think (you know who Im talking about) was influential in the smallest way during her meeting with DB).

Reply by BobbiCT on 2/25/11 10:53am
Msg #374152

A BIG BIG BUT ...

"... Appearance via webcam does not meet the requirements for notarization IN California."

A notary physically present IN California cannot do this. I don't see where it answers the question:

If the act of notarization is performed IN Virginia according to Virginia laws, is the document accepted in California? In short, California currently accepts the acts of Virginia Public Officials if the act was performed in accordance with Viriginia law. Does this mean California businesses, entities and others will no longer accept documents notarized by Virginia notary Public Officials? I doubt it.

The notice warns a California notary from buying into this product, it doesn't resolve the basic issue some of us see: personal appearance via viewing a Talking Head by web cam or skype is not "personal" enough (or maybe not talking, just viewing a head with a moving hand and pen).

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/25/11 11:36am
Msg #374155

Exactly! Re: A BIG BIG BUT ...

Therein lies my concern: IF this becomes legal in VA, then, according to Federal Law, this VA practice must then be accepted in every other state. Once that happens, why would any other state NOT decide this was 'progress' (barf) and pass their own law? A 'thinking' State (assuming one exists) would have to pass a law saying 'webcam stuff is not acceptable' in our state...but that would mean conflict with Federal law. What a can of worms VA has opened!

And why? The answer more than likely lies in Sandra Clark's later post-- Msg #3741553 --about who will profit from this law. As always.... follow the money....and the politics.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/25/11 1:31pm
Msg #374176

I shot a letter off

asking just that question. It is my opinion that anything done in California does not apply to other states, so I wanted to know if a notarization done in a state where video ID's are legal if that act would be recognized in the State of California. Right now, as things stand, the answer to that question is probably yes unless California passes a statute against it. Right now, California records DOT notarized by the rules of other states. Seems like we would have to pass a statute stating that all notarizations on documents meant for execution in California must meet our requirements.

Just as states don't have to recognized gay marriage performed in states that allow it, states don't have to recognize notarizations from other states. But oh, what a hornets nest we will open there.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/25/11 1:36pm
Msg #374177

What I would hope...before this VA bill does become law

that MAYBE they'll at least amend it so that the procedure is NOT allowed in any documents associated with the conveyance or encumbering real property.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/25/11 3:28pm
Msg #374220

I would hope for a veto...... n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/25/11 4:58pm
Msg #374239

Re: Exactly! Re: A BIG BIG BUT ...

There is no Federal law that requires a notarization performed in one state to be accepted by all other states. This has been custom based on the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, but to my knowledge that has never been tested in court as far as notarizations are concerned.

There WAS a bill passed last year that would have required this, but President Obama did not sign it because of concerns raised about the proposed law giving the banks a break on using robosigners. Right now, one state can legally refuse to accept a notarization from another state, and the question of whether that is permitted by the Constitution would have to be decided by a Federal court.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/25/11 6:39pm
Msg #374255

Re: Exactly! Re: A BIG BIG BUT ...

Except each state may have a statute covering the situation.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/26/11 4:30pm
Msg #374368

Re: Exactly! Re: A BIG BIG BUT ...

True, but the message I was replying to said there was a Federal law about this. There isn't, at least not yet.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/25/11 11:36am
Msg #374156

Remember that guy who started off on a plane trip

as a young man, and left the plane as an old man? (Or visa versa, it doesn't matter.)

Lon Cheney was the Man of a Thousand Faces.

Personally appeared, to me, means in person. Flesh and blood, eye to eye, and right here in front of me. If the DL says 5'2" tall, and the person in front of me is 6'4", well, you get the idea.

Next up, will holograms be "personally appearing?"

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/26/11 4:35pm
Msg #374369

Re: Remember that guy who started off on a plane trip

>Next up, will holograms be "personally appearing?"<

I'm thinking the next logical step might be avatars... If the law is changed to say that you don't actually have to present yourself physically, what difference does your appearance make?