Posted by Marian_in_CA on 7/24/11 8:33pm
Msg #391017

UPS Notary Experience. Wow.

I was in a UPS store the other day running an errand and a guy came in behind me needing a notarization. Since they were standing right next to me, I couldn't help but overhear it all. The guy's DL was expired... issued more than 5 years ago and didn't have another for of ID. (Mind you, the guy drove in and parked right next to me as we were coming in... yikes!)

The UPS notary immediately went to, "If you have to people who aren't related to you, we can use them as credible witnesses."

They went back and forth, and me being the buttinksy that I am... had to speak up. The UPS notary was insistent that the CWs could not be related to him in any way.

I told them that wasn't true... then I went in to my spiel about every other possible form of ID the guy might have. Asked if there was a way he could go get his current DL. He said, "Nah, I have no intention of renewing right now." (WHAT??)

The UPS guy said, "No, family members can't be a credible witness."

I told him that they could... they just couldn't have any financial interest in the document he was signing. I then continued my speech about the requirements for CWs (in CA).

So UPS dude goes to his drawer and breaks out an NNA primer... from 2008. I pulled up my phone which has the PDF of the current state handbook and showed him the requirements.

It all turned out well, and the guy decided he was going to go get him Mom and Brother to vouch for him and come back.

The whole time, though, I'm guessing UPS dude was pretty ticked off at me. Whatever... I probably actually ensured that they'd make $10 on the guy when he came back, rather than outright turning him away with bad information.

It just has me wondering... what are these CA instructors telling these people? I swear, if the CA notary Assn ever gets off the ground, one of the first things I'd want to push for would be changes in the education requirements.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/24/11 8:38pm
Msg #391019

Re: UPS Notary Experience. Wow.....I'm confused

"It all turned out well, and the guy decided he was going to go get him Mom and Brother to vouch for him and come back"

How did this turn out well??

You said his DL was expired, he had no other form of ID and he had no intention of renewing his license.

IMO this does not qualify for CW's. It's not difficult if not impossible for him to get ID - he just has no intention of getting valid ID...

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/24/11 9:16pm
Msg #391022

Re: UPS Notary Experience. Wow.....I'm confused

Well, I agree... when I say "it turned out well" I meant that the guy stopped pushing the ups dude to help him and went to get help. I never actually told him that it was appropriate to do that... I just made sure he knew that they could be CWs if that's the way he had to go. I did point out to him that CWs should only be used if it were difficult or impossible to get another form of ID, and that if he used them, this CWs would be swearing to that under oath.

I was trying to be helpful without getting too involved.

I didn't ask, but I got the distinct impression (from everything I saw and heard) that the guy wasn't renewing his DL because he has some legal issues that he's skirting... if you walk in to the DMV with pending warrants, you leave in a squad car. Not that I'm condoning that one bit... in fact, I was horrified that he was driving on an expired DL. But, my guess is that's why he wasn't trying to get it renewed.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/24/11 10:11pm
Msg #391032

Since CWs cannot benefit financially from the transaction, nor can they be named in the document, that means beneficiaries and heirs (immediate family and to a degree extended family) cannot be CWs.......with that said, I also tell people CWs cannot be related to the principle by blood, marriage or adoption. The beneficiary does not have to be family related and are excluded as a CW.

Imagine the whole family fighting in court over who will have guardianship over "grandma" - financially and healthwise. Powers of attorney forms, financial documents and healthcare directives were notarized and CWs were used because "grandma" had no valid ID....her DL expired 20 years ago and no one bothered to get her a state ID card.

One family member doesn't like that so-and-so is in charge of grandma so he/she sues and names all of the family and the Notary as defendants......every decision made on grandmas behalf and every part of the notarizations are scrutinized, down to who were the CWs and the Notary's journal shows that two family members were the CWs - those two CW are heirs down the line somewhere. Though this was explained to the CWs at the time of the notarizations but they thought nothing of it since they are family members "down the line". Well, the judge declares the family members are not down the line but "up the line".....enough so that they should not have been CWs. The Notary will be blamed for this.

So to avoid any such possible scenario to ever creep upon me, I instruct people to have CWs that are NOT related to the principle by blood, marriage or adoption and I have these CWs take an oath to this along with the oath that the principal person before us is in fact John/Jane Doe. Just as I ask for fingerprints from ALL signers, regardless of the doc, and I do NOT notarize for anyone related to me by blood, marriage or adoption, I ensure that CWs are NOT related to the principal signer.

Though it may be legal, I do not believe it is in the best interest of anyone to use family as CWs. Too much liability on the Notary - IMHO.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/24/11 10:42pm
Msg #391037

"Since CWs cannot benefit financially from the transaction, nor can they be named in the document, that means beneficiaries and heirs (immediate family and to a degree extended family) cannot be CWs......."


Well, that's given. And, I did impart that to him. However, if the document doesn't involve any of those things (and in this case it didn't) then there is nothing preventing it. We shouldn't assume that a person is a beneficiary or an heir... that's not our business. IMO, we should just be giving them information and letting them make the decision for themselves.

What I tell people with CWs is that they have to swear under oath to 5 things... and if they aren't comfortable with any of those 5, then they would not be an appropriate CW.

Those 5 things are:

1. The person signing the document is the person named in the document.
2. That they personally know the person signing the document.
3. The the person does not possess a form of identification appropriate for notarization.
4. They they reasonably believe that the person's situation is such that it is very difficult or impossible for the person to obtain another form of identification.
5. They are not named in the document nor do they have any financial interest in the document being signed.

I also point out to them, before they take the oath, that they are swearing to those 5 things as if they were in court in front of a judge, and I point out the part of the handbook that states (Civil Code 1185) that, "Any person convicted of perjury... shall forfeit any financial interest in
the document."

If after telling them all this, they still want to proceed... I'm fine with it. I can't tell them whether or not they can BE CWs unless they lack proper ID themselves, are clearly named in the document or don't want to swear to all 5 facts. Beyond that, the responsibility lies with them... not me. I've also recently been handing out a small piece of paper to to them with the same information.

I don't see how, after making this clear to them, there would be any liability on the notary's part. As long as you notate everything in the journal... and properly issue the oath, you've done your job.

Besides, how many friends and neighbors would actually be able to swear to all 5 things without some pretty intimate knowledge of the person?


The point being that UPS dude was adamant that family members were 100% not allowed to be CWs... and that's not true.

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 7/24/11 11:50pm
Msg #391043

I think your response is absolutely correct.

Marian's situation is a little unusual but I am sure she would agree with me that
the vast majority of CD Witness notarizations occur in hospitals, nursing homes,
and convalescent homes.

The problem in CA is the elderly don't know he/she need to get a CA Senior ID issued by our DMV and they think a Soc Sec Card/Medicare card/etc is okay after they quit driving.

I wish CA would make more (Public Service Announcements) about the Senior ID card.

Honestly, most people in CA don't know it's available.

I had one yesterday, that I told the daughter she needed to get this Senior ID for her dad ( I always tell them on the phone before the appt) and when I got to house we used 2 neighbors to ID him.

He is "house bound" and she told me the DMV told her it would 1- 2 months (est) to get the camera crew to her father's home.

I think only 5 states allow 2 Credible Witnesses and at least I could get the document notarized for him.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 12:34am
Msg #391049

Re: I think your response is absolutely correct.

I also have come to the realization that the "very difficult or impossible" determination is not ours to make when it comes to using two CWs. That's up to the CWs themselves when they take the oath. If they're swearing to it... they're swearing to it.

"Very difficult or impossible" is rather subjective if you think about it. Who are we to them THEM that they're wrong? I may have a distinct opinion about it... but I'm not going to let them know that.

Personally, I don't offer the option right away... but when I have, I've been comfortable doing so.

A lot of the ones that I've done have actually been for people in the hospital after an accident. The CHP is notorious for seizing DLs of drivers if, after an accident, they feel the driver needs to be "retested" for their skills or if they think the driver has developed sight issues. What happens is that after being seized, they send the ID to Sacramento to be processed. This completely messes with the person's ability to get things done after the accident because their only photo ID was taken by the cops. I've seen so many times. In the hospital, it's usually because a family member is trying to get their vehicle or possessions out of impound and they require a notarized letter from the owner. That's a time sensitive thing, and in those cases... CWs are often the only answer if the person doesn't have a passport or something else.

In the case of this guy... are CW's appropriate? I don't know... I know he said that he had no intention of renewing his DL, and from what else I heard and saw, my guess is because he's got some warrants and renewing his DL would end up in his being detained.

It's awfully rude to say, "Buddy... just go to the DMV and renew it... it's not difficult or impossible for you to do that." Well, how do *I* know that? If he has two CWs who are willing to swear to it... then he's meeting the ID requirements...whether I like it or not.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/25/11 10:00am
Msg #391091

Disagree.

"I left my ID at home" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".
"I haven't gotten around to renewing my ID" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".
"The name on my ID doesn't match the name on the document" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".

"Difficult or impossible to obtain ID" means people in nursing homes who physically can not get to a DMV; people who can not obtain proper ID due to citizenship status; people who have never had an ID and can not get one because of external circumstances that legally prevent them from obtaining one.

The man you mention HAS an ID, just one that isn't valid. That is HIS problem, not the notary's problem - and I would not have hesitated to refused the notarization - CWs or not.

California notaries - on this forum and elsewhere - consistently amaze me at how loosely Credible Witnesses are used. It is a shame that the SOS is of the position that California's have no responsibility whatsoever except verifying that the signature on the document matches the signature on an ID...

We are the final step before fraud is committed. Shame on California for trying to make its notaries forget their main purpose as public officials. We are not signature guarantee-ers, we are public servants who are responsible for making sure that a document is signed voluntarily by the authorized person, and, if applicable, that the document was sworn to according to law.

My not-so-humble opinion.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/25/11 10:06am
Msg #391092

Well, said Robert...I agree n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 11:29am
Msg #391101

Re: Well, said Robert...I agree

See what I noted below ins Msg #391099 to James. I totally agree with you guys, actually... on a personal level, these people are just too lazy to get proper ID, and from my POV it isn't impossible.

However, our handbook does not give the "very difficult or impossible" decision to the notary, it's not our call, it's the call of the CW. I may not agree with it, but that's what it says in the handbook.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/25/11 12:19pm
Msg #391115

But isn't it one of the basic principles of the office of

Notary Public to not notarize a sworn statement when we know that statement to be false? Again, what would a judge say?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 12:41pm
Msg #391122

Re: But isn't it one of the basic principles of the office of

True... BUT... how do we know it's false? The requirement being sworn to is that the CW "reasonably believe" something to be true ... not that it is absolute fact. Who am I to tell somebody that what they "reasonably believe" to be true is actually false?

What I believe is "reasonably" true could vary greatly from what another believes.

And, like I said, the idea of "very difficult or impossible" is entirely subjective. What may seem easy to one person may actually be "very difficult or impossible" to somebody else. I may have my opinion... but that doesn't change *their* perspective of it.

Let's say you know somebody who is agoraphobic or has an extreme social anxiety issue. Having been there myself after a very traumatic event in my life, I can tell you that from my perspective, the idea of leaving my home or even letting anyone see me at my door was crippling. I would have panic attacks that lasted all afternoon at the thought of just having to go outside to check the mail. Yet, I know from the perspective of other people... I must have been a lunatic. I mean, what's so difficult about walking outside to grab the mail, right? Why not just go to class, etc.?

Point being, our language says, "reasonable belief" belongs to the CW, not the notary. As a Notary, I'm not going to go prying in to people's personal issues and reasons for what, to me, appears to be a rather simple or straightforward task. Absent any other valid form of ID, if they have two CWs that understand and are willing to swear to those 5 things under oath... I can't prevent them from doing so.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/25/11 4:55pm
Msg #391162

Re: Disagree.

<<<"I left my ID at home" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".
"I haven't gotten around to renewing my ID" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".
"The name on my ID doesn't match the name on the document" does not mean it is "difficult or impossible to obtain ID".>>>

Completely agree.......common sense would tell 98% of people that the above are flim-flam excuses. If a customer told me "I haven't gotten around to renewing my ID" then my response would be, "Well, when you do get around to it, and after it arrives in your mailbox, call me back."

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/25/11 1:08am
Msg #391052

<<<We shouldn't assume that a person is a beneficiary or an heir... that's not our business. IMO, we should just be giving them information and letting them make the decision for themselves.>>>

I disagree. Anytime I take on risk/liability/responsibility for which I must sign my name and affix my notarial seal - it most certainly IS my business.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 1:55am
Msg #391055

I see what you mean, but I wonder... if you are trying to determine if somebody *could* be a beneficiary or an heir, absent obvious evidence (such as their name in the document) wouldn't that be making a legal determination? That's what I mean.

And, since giving an oath to a CW is a notarial act, if you deny somebody the ability to do that... absent any obvious reason why you shouldn't as noted above... couldn't you then be putting yourself in to a situation where you can get in to trouble for declining a legal request for notarization? If the CW is not obviously a party to the document and is willing to swear under oath... where is the notary's liability?


It just seems to me that if you put somebody under oath, with them knowing full well the potential consequences if they lie... how are you then responsible? The law itself says that *if* a court finds them guilty of perjury then they lose financial interest.

That's one of the reasons that I know pass out a piece of paper to the CWs that details the 5 things they're swearing to and the relevant codes.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/25/11 2:02am
Msg #391058

"I know pass out a piece of paper to the CWs that details the 5 things they're swearing to and the relevant codes. "

I take that a step further. I have a document I've created for CW's that lists the requirements for the use of CW's followed by a place for them to sign and print their name, with a jurat certificate at the bottom. This is for my own personal use and I just stick it into an envelope taped to the inside back of my journal after the fact. I have them read it over before I administer the oath, then sign it. That way, I have documentation as to the process that has taken place. Of course, I also have them sign my journal on the appropriate page.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 2:09am
Msg #391059

Janet... that's a great idea. There's certainly nothing preventing us from doing that, and it would serve as a way for you to prove that you did issue the oath. In fact, that could even serve *as* the oath.

My biggest concern is in denying somebody the right be be a CW if they are ready and willing to do so, and I'm not sure it's right for us to tell somebody they can't do it when they have every legal right to do so. The best we can do is a basic screen for the obvious disqualifications such as being named in the document, lacking proper ID or being unwilling to take the oath.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/25/11 8:18am
Msg #391074

I don't use family members as creditable witnesses. Marian where did you get the smartphone copy of the handbook, that valuable.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 11:24am
Msg #391099

James, it's the just the same PDF file you can download from the website. I just open it on my phone since it can read PDF files. My Blackberry had a PDF reader, but I recently switched to Android, and it reads them without any special apps.

I do want to clarify that I NEVER tell people outright that CWs are a good idea from the start... it's a last resort. UPS dude offered it straight away without asking him about other options.

I do think that that those of you who blanket refuse to use family members as CWs are doing so in error... though I *DO* fully understand why you feel that way. I just know that the handbook gives the requirements, and absent any information that disqualifies them... then a family member can be used.

Of course people who have ID and don't want to update it are lazy.... but again, "very difficult or impossible" is subjective and CA law is not asking the notary to make that determination... the law tells us that it is the CW who swears to the fact. That's my point here. The only place we find "very difficult or impossible" is in relation to what the CW is telling you under oath...

"The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification."


It doesn't matter what the NOTARY believes... it's what the credible witness believes and is willing to swear to. There's a big difference there.

If it were left up to ME, as a notary.... then it would be a different conversation and my position would be more similar to many of you. But, I'm going by what it says in the handbook.

I know that if I were denied the ability to be a CW for a family member who needed it, solely because I was a family member and I had no financial interest in a document.... then I'd be on the phone to the SoS in a heartbeat filing a complaint.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/25/11 12:15pm
Msg #391112

Thanks Marian for that info and.

I've only done 3 creditable witnesses in the 4 1/2 years I've been a notary and one was for someone who was paralyzed. The other two were elder abuse cases involving guess who? That's right, family members. The Attorney I work with sometimes made the decision to go a different route.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/25/11 12:40pm
Msg #391121

SO COOL thanks again...I didn't have

a hard copy of the handbook but now I got it on my phone it is just great. No excuses for sure now.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 12:48pm
Msg #391125

Re: SO COOL thanks again...I didn't have

You're welcome... yeah, I've put it right on my home screen on my phone so it opens right up when I tap on it. Easy, fast access.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 12:44pm
Msg #391124

Re: Thanks Marian for that info and.

Oh well, in those cases, I can see the issue.

Since I do more GNW than loan work, I tend to see this more often. Mostly in hospitals, occasionally in jail. It's all situations where access to current ID is often an obvious problem.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/25/11 10:09am
Msg #391094

You have to ask yourself - what would a judge think? IMO - if your defense to the judge for a wrongdoing was the California-cliche "I can't refuse a notarial service!", the judge would smack his gavel down on you faster than you can say jurat.

I understand you have a legal obligation to provide services to the public, but it is just like when the county recorder refuses a deed because the seal isn't clear... the recorder is a ministerial official, just like the notary. They can not legally determine what is or isn't a "legally executed" document - however, for the sake of maintaining the integrity of their records they do need to make some executive decisions.

I have never used a CW and never would except in very extreme, limiting circumstances. The #1 goal of notaries is to prevent fraud, and allowing questionable CW practices under the "I can't refuse a notarial service!" excuse will not look good to a judge IMO.

I'm not blaming you, Marian - I think the California SOS makes its own interpretations of notarial law that belittle the notary's authority and responsibility. I would like to see Califiornia's Atty General thoroughly review the SOS' notary handbook, because I guarantee they would find a great deal of questionable advice.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 11:26am
Msg #391100

I don't disagree with you there... thre are a lot of things in our handbook that I do not, personally, agree with. But... we're stuck with what we're given.

See what I noted above to James... the "very difficult or impossible" bit isn't the notary's call.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 1:29am
Msg #391217

"I think the California SOS makes its own interpretations of notarial law that belittle the notary's authority and responsibility. I would like to see Califiornia's Atty General thoroughly review the SOS' notary handbook, because I guarantee they would find a great deal of questionable advice."

And how many times have you spoken to the CA SOS office? I think you're jumping to conclusions based on what you've read (aka "heresay"?). In my experience the SOS office Notary Division doesn't make any interpretations. They will quote you what code to look up that pertains to your question - and maybe read it to you - but interpretations? Not so much. Neither does the Handbook offer advice. It simply states what the state's notary laws are, good, bad or otherwise.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/26/11 7:47am
Msg #391236

Here's an example

Direct from your 2011 handbook:

"a notary public’s function only relates to the signature
and not the contents of the document"

Now show me where this assertion is stated in California law? The answer is... it's not. This is an interpretation that the SOS has made, and I think it is very misleading and in many cases flat out incorrect.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/25/11 4:46pm
Msg #391158

<<<Those 5 things are:

1. The person signing the document is the person named in the document.
2. That they personally know the person signing the document.
3. The the person does not possess a form of identification appropriate for notarization.
4. They they reasonably believe that the person's situation is such that it is very difficult or impossible for the person to obtain another form of identification.
5. They are not named in the document nor do they have any financial interest in the document being signed.>>>>

Your point #3 is worded different than the handbook (page 8), which says <quote> "The signer does not possess any of the identification documents AUTHORIZED BY LAW to establish the signer's identity; and....

How would a layperson know what is "authorized by law"? Marian, you believe decision is left up to a layperson to take an oath as a CW notarial laws they don't even fully know? IMHO, the Notary should be involved in who will be CWs because we do know the laws (at least we all should).

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/25/11 5:02pm
Msg #391164

"appropriate for notarization" is inherent in "authorized by law" --- if it isn't authorized by law, then it isn't appropriate for notarization.

A lay person would know this because I would go over the list with them well before the idea of using a CW came up. If it did come up, I would then review that list with the CW, too. Any time I do one, they are fully aware of what they are swearing to. I don't just assume that they know... that *would* be irresponsible of me. If, after that, though.... they still want to continue, I can't, for any good reason stop them.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/25/11 9:47pm
Msg #391191

<<<"appropriate for notarization" is inherent in "authorized by law" --- if it isn't authorized by law, then it isn't appropriate for notarization.>>>

But you have to stipulate "authorized by law" FIRST for "appropriate for notarization" to be inherent in it. You cannot say first "appropriate for notarization" and then postulate that that's inherent in "authorized by law". In other words, the handbook must be quoted verbatim, its wording comes FIRST - any similar phrases in inherent within the handbook wording, not the other way around.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/26/11 2:49am
Msg #391222

Personally, I think this is another slightly grey area, open for *some* interpretation. But I do quote exactly from the law in the forms I have CWs sign.

What concerns me about using CWs was summed up in something I heard just this past weekend. I was told that there was a study done that showed how powerful an influence acceptance is on people's behavior. They found that most people would rather say what they think will be accepted by others than to say what they really believe.

So how are most neighbors going to react when someone whose home is right next door to them asks them to vouch for them? IMO, it's the rare individual who is going to say to themselves, "Gee, do I really know for certain who this person is?" and then take it the next step and tell this person they have to live next to that they wouldn't be comfortable acting as their witness. So using CWs doesn't give me warm fuzzies as an alternative in every situation and I don't believe we necessarily have an obligation to offer that to everyone who has an ID issue.

On the "difficult or impossible" scale, there's a very wide divergence. Some are very clear cut, like the house-bound, infirm, etc. In other situations, it's not so clear - and I agree that things are not always what they seem. But again, I do believe that we should have *some* discretion as to whether or not we even mention CWs as an option. Just for example of the other extreme, there's the situation where a person has changed their name, doc is in the new name, but they "just haven't gotten around to it yet" when it comes to getting a new ID.

I don't know if I'm making any sense here, but I guess my point is trying to be that I believe there will always be a need for us to use some degree of judgment in executing our responsibilities, since the law isn't going to be able to directly address every possible situation. (And we'd go nuts if it tried!)

Reply by NotaryMot/CA on 7/24/11 11:51pm
Msg #391044

Interesting, I once tested a UPS lady's notary skills and brought down my expired DL from 10 years ago. Not only did it not match my name on the document, but it was clearly expired. I later said, I'm sorry I accidentally handed you my old DL. She also didn't issue an oath for Jurat.

They don't know what they're doing.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/25/11 12:57am
Msg #391051

The one near me seems to always have their notary journal out on the counter whenever I come by (at least when their notary is there working). I've mentioned it a couple of times, but they always answer that they had just used it. Pretty lame excuse. I'm debating reporting it if I see it again, but I think they'd guess it was me - and I use that store a lot for my drop offs. I hate to be worrying about whether or not my packages "accidentally" ended up in the wrong pile some day.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/25/11 10:12am
Msg #391095

UPS/Pack-N-Ship/Amscot notaries are the absolute

bottom of the barrell.

I know there are a lot of notaries on here that refer general notary work to the UPS Store - that is the LAST place I would refer someone.

In Florida, execution of a jurat without administering oath is a third-degree felony (it's a false notarial certificate). These UPS notaries commit felonies all day long, all the while jeapordizing the legality of the documents they notarize.

Reply by MaggieMae_CA on 7/25/11 1:44pm
Msg #391134

Test a UPS notary and put your commission at risk?

With all do respect, did I understand what I just read? You used an expired DL, signed a document to see if the UPS notary would notarize it, as a test?

If that's the case, you committed fraud and put your own commission at risk.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/25/11 3:27pm
Msg #391148

Seriously?

>>>If that's the case, you committed fraud and put your own commission at risk.<<<

Do you have any statutory authority to back up that incorrect statement?

What does one have to do with another? If she presents an expired DL how does that put HER commission at risk? You don't HAVE to have a driver license to be a Notary Public.