Posted by BrendaTx on 1/13/11 2:50pm
Msg #368504

Says the Ca. State Office:


Thank you for contacting our office regarding possible violations of law
surrounding the duties of a California notary public.

The information you provided has been forwarded to our Investigations
Unit who will review the information and take appropriate action.

Sincerely,
Notary Public Section

Reply by FGX/NJ on 1/13/11 3:00pm
Msg #368506

GOOD WORK
By the way this is statement from his web site.

Legal and Binding
Your notarization is official and complies with the law, allowing you to notarize regardless of where you are. Agreements signed and notarized are binding under the law.

I think this well might constitute FRAUD.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/13/11 3:12pm
Msg #368510

The work was done by a Ca. Notary who prefers to remain anonymous.

Reply by FGX/NJ on 1/13/11 3:29pm
Msg #368514

Have also filed complaint with Google Ad words

Reply by Dennis_IN on 1/13/11 3:37pm
Msg #368518

Indiana SOS replied that they are forwarding my letter to their legal counsel.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/13/11 3:49pm
Msg #368519

It just makes you wonder who was the legal

adviser for these folks.

Reply by Lee/AR on 1/13/11 5:35pm
Msg #368542

Re: It just makes you wonder who was the legal

What makes you think they had a legal advisor? Just a techie or 2 with a great idea.
Oh, and it's Palin's fault. Or the extreme right wingnuts. Sorry... there I go jumping to conclusions based on nothing.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 1/13/11 7:02pm
Msg #368556

Hey, I got slammed yesterday. This should be in politics

if you are going to mention Palin. hehe

Reply by Cari on 1/13/11 8:57pm
Msg #368582

they used, "Be your own lawyer in 1 day...Dummy series ;) n/m

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 1/13/11 7:13pm
Msg #368559

Re: It just makes you wonder who was the legal

If I had to guess, probably none.

Reply by CH2inCA on 1/13/11 4:36pm
Msg #368529

Robo Signing potential

I'm all for technology...love it!! The Iphone, the wireless stuff, the laptop stuff, the cloud...
If this is somehow (though I can't see it) deemed to be legal, be assured I'm gonna dive in.

BUT, does anyone else see this as potential for robo signing on steriods. ONE commission, multiple computer operators posing as Notaries?

Reply by Cari on 1/13/11 8:59pm
Msg #368583

YES, and they'll be located in a 3rd world country! n/m

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 1/13/11 7:11pm
Msg #368558

I got the same message.

I also filed complaints with VeriSign Trusted, and Truste listed at the bottom of his site. I mentioned the potential for consumer fraud in both cases.

Looking for the web hosting service next.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/13/11 7:14pm
Msg #368560

Glenn, I thought about that, too!

TrustE? Seriously? Now we know what TrustE is all about.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/13/11 8:47pm
Msg #368576

I was told the same over the phone... they are definitely looking at this. The guy I spoke to said something that I think is very specific.

On the website, in countering the question about not having the ID in person, they indicate that they would use "out of wallet" verification or something like that. What that means is that they'd run a soft pull of your credit report to ask you questions to verify your identity... as it appears on your credit report.

First... and for California... this is NOT one of the acceptable forms of identification. The person must present, in person, one of the officially recognized forms of ID. You can't just make up some other method of verifying one's ID and have it fly.

And second... there are TONS of errors on credits reports that could prevent you from answering questions properly. I know what process they're talking about. I've done it before... and it was asking me for my monthly payment on my student loans. Well, the amount they were asking for was different that reality, so I couldn't pass. It's full of flaws.

What they're doing is based on a loose interpretation of "personal appearance" -- figuring if you can see and hear, that's personally appearing.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/13/11 8:50pm
Msg #368577

Good work, folks! I'm proud that there are notaries here

who do know what's legal and are willing to take a stand against potential illegal activity.
Bravo!!!!

Reply by MW/VA on 1/13/11 8:51pm
Msg #368578

Oops. Do you think this will be another situation where

Harry is threatened with lawsuits for libel? LOL

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 1/13/11 8:59pm
Msg #368584

Re: Oops. Do you think this will be another situation where

No, I don't think so. Have you noticed that this guy (Chris or whoever) has headed for the hills?

I think he will get a good looking at from several different directions. Then if he survives and can actually have a business of some kind that's legal, well more power to him.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/13/11 9:37pm
Msg #368588

Re: Oops. Do you think this will be another situation where

I really doubt Harry will get in to much trouble... there are a lot of very smart notaries here who know their state laws back and forth. It's pretty clear to me that Chris and his co-founder are not notaries themselves and are not familiar with Notary law.

I can tell you that neither of them appear on California's list of notaries, and they are apparently operating out of California.

I get they they wanted to make an honest, easy process... I think that shows. But, they clearly didn't consult the right people before the jumped in to this.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/13/11 10:15pm
Msg #368591

I also detect that they are misinformed, not malicious. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/13/11 9:19pm
Msg #368587

There's no libel IMO

I speak for FL that personal appearance requires physical presence...I can state that without recourse and I can also state that if they do it here it's illegal - at least as the statutes are right now.

Each person has spoken based on their own state laws - and if we can't clarify our own state laws for someone on a public forum, especially when that person (or company) is *skirting those laws..then something's seriously wrong.

Statement of fact is not libel.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/13/11 9:45pm
Msg #368589

Re: There's no libel IMO

Agreed.

The CA handbook states, regarding venue, "The county named in the heading in the notarial certificate is the county where the signer personally appeared before the notary public. (Government Code section 8200)"


Also, "Key wording of an acknowledgment is “personally appeared.” An acknowledgment
cannot be affixed to a document mailed or otherwise delivered to a notary public whereby
the signer did not personally appear before the notary public, even if the signer is known by
the notary public."


...and...

"The jurat is identified by the wording “Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed)”
contained in the form. In the jurat, the notary public certifies:
• That the signer personally appeared before the notary public on the date indicated and in
the county indicated;
• That the signer signed the document in the presence of the notary public;"


...and...

"A jurat cannot be affixed to a document mailed or otherwise delivered to a notary public whereby the signer did not personally appear, take an oath, and sign in the presence of the notary public, even if the signer is known by the notary public."


I mean... how do you get around all that?

I can see how some people might interpret "personal appearance" by webcam... but at least for CA, especially regarding Venue... it's clear that the signer and the notary must be in the same location.

Plus, as I mentioned before... you can't just go making up acceptable forms of ID by utilizing "public records" or whatever it is they are doing.

Reply by John Schenk on 1/13/11 9:12pm
Msg #368586

The concensus, and I agree, IT AIN'T LEGAL!

Not in ANY state. It "could" be one day, but it isn't today. I think the website itself is a statutory violation in most states. Personally, I think it comes down very soon.

Good job by bruthas and sistas!

JJ

Reply by rolomia on 1/18/11 7:40am
Msg #369012

Re: The concensus, and I agree, IT AIN'T LEGAL!

Unfortunately, the eventual likelihood is that such improper methods of verifying a signer's identity will be legally allowed by ignorant, unwary legislators. All too often, freshman lawmakers are more influenced by deep-pocketed lobbyists representing special-interest groups than they are by any moral compass they pretended to exercise during their campaign. And, deeply-entrenched incumbents are usually no better at resisting their appetite for greed than the PAC's that fund their campaigns, either. JMO