Posted by JAM/CA on 2/28/12 2:25pm
Msg #413390

Belinda/CA, regarding Foreign Passports

I am re-posting my response, after speaking with the SOS today regarding the acceptance of foreign passports as I.D.

Just got off the phone with Deana at the Secretary of State office and she suggest you call her Supervisor at the SOS, Sylvia Phelan.

Foreign Passports are acceptable for I.D., as long as they are stamped by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. She states, no passports have physical descriptions and that you need to read each subsection separately.

For instance: 3 (d) states exactly what is required regarding acceptance of U.S. military I.D.

With your interpretation Belinda, no foreign passports would be acceptable, so why list it as an acceptable form of I.D. ?

Deana at the SOS was quite clear, that we can accept foreign passports as long as they are stamped.

Didn't want this to get lost on page 2 or 3. Sorry to other States for having to bear with us in California.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 2/28/12 3:02pm
Msg #413400

JAM: Thanks for the follow-up and ...

posting a clear and concise explanation.

As someone said yesterday ... sometimes we just over-think things.

Reply by Buddy Young on 2/28/12 7:10pm
Msg #413431

That's exactly the way I understood it also.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/28/12 9:43pm
Msg #413442

I too have talked to SOS twice. Got a different story.

Goofy ineffient people. Wish we could get it in writing. Why can't the place write it down? Interpreting their Civil Code for the public should not have anything to do with whether they are a notary or not.

It is not a matter of overthinking.

It came up during a signing where the instructions told me not to accept the borrower's foreign passport because of an issue that had arisen for them recently where a notary would not take a foreign passport unless a list of items appeared on it. The lender then checked with the SOS and low and behold was told that the notary was right. Because of this scenario I re-read the handbook. I also called the SOS. They told me not to take a foreign passport without all the info listed in Item 3.

Then, I called them again after the long thread got going and was told the same thing!
Then, you call them and get a different answer.

How do they expect us to do our jobs if they can't keep be consistent. (Not a question but a statement.)

Guess there is enough confusion that no matter which course we take we are safe. Ha

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/28/12 11:19pm
Msg #413447

Actually, no.

See, like us, they can NOT give legal opinions. No UPL at any state agency.
So, like here, you'll get a nice variety of 'opinions'. Pick one. Think about what you'll tell that judge. If it sounds reasonable to you, all you can do it go with it and hope it's defensible.
And, yeah, that really sucks.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/28/12 11:37pm
Msg #413448

I have enjoyed all the input. Not trying to get

Notaries to do one thing or another. Just put the topic out there for discussion to see if CA notaries had ever considered the Code.
Thanks all. Happy stamping.

Reply by Buddy Young on 2/29/12 12:14am
Msg #413451

Re: I have enjoyed all the input. Not trying to get

I usually do not write long posts, but here is my take on the subject.

I did a lot of thinking after last nights post and dug out my passport, looked at it and determined that it does not have a discription of me. So I guess U.S. passports don't qualify either.

Belinda you are a bright cookie, but you over did this one.

I don't think the SOS , in their infinate wisdom meant for passports U.S. or foriegn to meet all those requiements. If they did we wouldn't be accepting any passports as proper identification. I also don't believe that it was the spirit of the law to require all of 3. a-f for passports.

In my opinion passports are the second best form of identification, next to thumb prints.

When I got my passport, if memory serves me correctly, I had to prove who I was.

So I will accept a foreign passport as valad I.D.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/29/12 3:38am
Msg #413461

Re: I have enjoyed all the input. Not trying to get

"I did a lot of thinking after last nights post and dug out my passport, looked at it and determined that it does not have a discription [sic] of me. So I guess U.S. passports don't qualify either."

Not so. US passports are specifically excluded from that requirement. I've missed a couple of days here, so I'm way behind and posted on the other thread, but please see Msg #413460. [Sorry, I forget how to enter a message number as an active link.]


"When I got my passport, if memory serves me correctly, I had to prove who I was.

So I will accept a foreign passport as valad [sic] I.D."

However logical, this is completely irrelevant. The same could probably be said about a variety of other situations, but that doesn't impact what is stated in the law that governs our obligations when it comes to what we are allowed to accept as ID. But, as I alluded to in my other post, I think that this may be an area that should be considered for an amendment to the Code that governs this issue in our state.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 10:42am
Msg #413496

US Passports are not listed under Item 3, therefore

not in the subject being talked about.

I presented a question to CA notaries to see what they were doing or if they had ever considered the wording of the Civil Code. Being the devil's advocate because of a situation that arose for me. Devil's advocate. Wanted to make others think and discuss. Don't you think when you have to study something you become more founded in it?

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 8:16pm
Msg #413571

Oops Oops meant to say #4 not #3. n/m

Reply by DaveCA/CA on 2/29/12 9:57am
Msg #413493

Belinda, thanks for bringing this up

Here I thought I was doing well. A couple of weeks ago, and I'm sorry I don't remember who brought it up about thumb prints for Reconveyance and I was wrong on that. So I figured I was wrong on this.

It would be nice if this could be spelled out. I know I'm not the smartest guy around but only my 17 years old son would say something like:

Reasonable reliance on the presentation of any one of the following, provided that a document specified in subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, shall either be current or have been issued within five years and shall contain a photograph and description of the person named on it, shall be signed by the person, shall bear a serial or other identifying number, and, in the event that the document is a passport, shall have been stamped by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security:

I mean, it is such a mouthful. Anyway, thank you all for participating in this great discussion.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/29/12 5:31am
Msg #413468

it's possible to obtain written directive ...

The SOS has a legal department, and this is their realm. I would suggest spending a little time and writing down ALL your questions (does printed name on ID have to be an exact match to signer's name as signed, etc), to make the endeavor worth your time and effort. Going through CA posts here on N/R would be an easy way to gather common questions.

I would suggest calling the office of the SOS Chief Counsel, telling them you're seeking a legal directive relative to notarial statutes, and ask where/to whom to address your written request.

I've done this here in MI, and it was a bit like chasing after the Holy Grail - but I did get a written directive after 5 months.

**This has been a particularly interesting debate, btw. FWIW, my own literal reading of this CA statute leaves me with the opinion that it IS requiring a physical description on foreign passports. While that might not make any kind of logical sense, law is intended to be taken absolutely literally, word by word - and logical sense doesn't always come into play. It may well be unintentional (on the part of whomever drafted this), but that is irrelevant when it comes to following the law.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 10:45am
Msg #413497

Well said. n/a n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 2/29/12 8:28am
Msg #413477

I agree with Ms. Phelan accept on one point:

She is inaccurate in stating that NO foreign passports contain physical descriptions. My Bahamian passport has my occupation, height, eye color, and even has a line for "special peculiarities".

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 11:18am
Msg #413505

Thank you FlaNotary2. That was one of my original

questions. "Is anyone aware of a foreign passport that contains a physical description?" I wonder what foreign passports do?

Thanks for the Bahamian passport description.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 12:08pm
Msg #413508

Am I trying to convince some I am right and

you may be wrong? NO Just fishing for input and discussing replies. Thinking this through. Working my way to becoming grounded in what the law says. I have set aside what I want it to say and am working on doing what is expected of me according to this CA Civil Code. Stating what I see. I am not overthinking this. But, when I come on the board and there is another comment that does not make sense to me I think that through and comment.

So... if SUBparagraph (D) is inclusive of itself and is not affected by it's Heading (4), why is it listed below (4) as a subparagraph? This is an honest question. Why then is the foreign passport not listed as item (1) or (2) or (3) with it's own regulation?

It simply says on pg 41 of the Civil Code 1185, (4), "...shall contain a photograph and description of the person named on it, shall be signed by the person, shall bear a serial or other identifying number, AND, in the event that the document is a passport, shall have been stamped by the United Sates Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Dept of Homeland Security: (A) A passport issued by a foreign government, (B) A driver's....."

Are we supposed to ignore the "AND" ?

Reply by JAM/CA on 2/29/12 12:31pm
Msg #413512

Re: Am I trying to convince some I am right and

I have also enjoyed this conversation and agree that this law needs to be rewritten. I see exactly what Belinda is talking about.

If (a) thru (f) were meant to be taken separately, they need to be separated by numbers, not sub sections attached to Number 3.

This was poorly written. I, like most notaries want to follow the law precisely; however, they don't always make it easy, especially when this was so poorly written.

This calls into question the acceptance of "Inmate I.D.", if these are indeed separate as stated by the SOS. (At least the person I spoke to ) Does the physical description and all other requirements apply to the inmate I.D. ?

Reply by Belinda/CA on 2/29/12 4:20pm
Msg #413538

NO not trying to convince some I am right...

Just presenting arguement for food for thought. I have not been presented anything convincing to the contrary yet. That is what I am looking for.

We cannot depend on the SOS office to interpret this for us. They have obviously given whatever answer suits the fancy of whoever answers the phone.

Does it need re-written? Maybe it is saying just what they want it to say and we just don't like it.

And as a side note, I have never taken an inmate ID as ID because they do not contain the four required items on them. I had the family members arrange for the guards to have the inmate driver license present for the signings or the family brought it along with them. No big deal. That way you are covered. Once I had them arrange two credible witnesses be present. No big deal. My daughter works at the county jail. She said they had a guy in there for 4 months before they found out he had a different name than he presented (and they accepted.) They made his ID band out like he said and it wasn't even him.

Yes, #4 is referring to "subparagraphs (A) through (F)."

So as far as an "inmate ID card" is concerned, if you are speaking of (E), it is included in (A) through "(F) An inmate identification card issued ON OR AFRER January 1, 1988, by the Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitiation, if the inmate is in custody" would require photo, description, signature and number. Can we read this any different? Again, please give me some concrete information to the contrary if you have it.

If, however you are speaking of (G), it is not included in (A) through (F), but it does have the "issued PRIOR TO January 1, 1988" stipulation.
Consequently (G) is not included in the requirements of "photo, description of the person named on it, shall be signed by the person, shall bear a serial or other identifying number..."
(G) has its own requirement of date only. It has its own section, as it were, since #4 is speaking of (A) to (F).

So, since something outside the requirements (G Inmate ID) has its own section, why wouldn't the foreign passport, if it did not have to meet the photo, description, signature, and serial number requirements? Why isn't the foreign passport put in (H) if the requirements do not apply? And, like a poster said earlier, their foreign passport does have their phsycial description and even a place for "special peculiarities".

I think the people who wrote the law wrote it specifically and carefully to say just what they wanted it to say.

Emotionally speaking this makes identifying people more difficult on us and the signer. I believe that is most of what I am reading here.
Practically speaking is it there in black and white?