Posted by FGX/NJ on 7/21/12 8:05am
Msg #427536
Va law
FYI
http://www.futurelawconsulting.us/content/images/PDF/EDDEJOURNAL2.3.pdf
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 7/21/12 8:38am
Msg #427537
Tim Reiniger is the former NNA official that I spoke about in an earlier post that was instrumental in getting this law passed. He lobbied with another former VA law maker (name escapes me).
|
Reply by FGX/NJ on 7/21/12 9:35am
Msg #427541
I believe you may be referring to Richard Hansberger, former NNA VP and head of their ENotarization project. He holds a Phd and law degree and is a recognized expert in electronic signatures etc. he is now with a company Safedocs that is doing remote Va. Notarizations for businesses. They plan to offer a program for Notaries nationwide to refer clients for Remote Va, Notarizations'
I believe that they were the main writers of the Va. law
|
Reply by FGX/NJ on 7/21/12 9:50am
Msg #427542
Here is article about safedocs.
http://www.technewsdaily.com/4521-online-notaries-save-schlepping-paperwork.html
|
Reply by VT_Syrup on 7/21/12 10:27am
Msg #427544
Considering who wrote the article, it's no surprise it doesn't really say anything you can't figure out from reading the law, and doesn't help figure out any of the questions raised on Notary Rotary that are not apparent from reading the law.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/21/12 11:13pm
Msg #427620
Seems to me that some of the paragraphs with general descriptions about what this new law will allow leave lots of room for misunderstanding regarding the circumstances under which this type of service would be appropriate.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/21/12 11:09am
Msg #427551
Okay...FGX, I misunderstood a previous exchange we had.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 7/21/12 11:55am
Msg #427553
No, Reininger was with NNA. I dealt with him in ref to some legislative issues when Va. was changing the law regarding names & signatures being on same page as the notarizations. Little did I know he was working with a lobbyist pushing FOR that change to our law. I think the lobbyist for the change was A E "Dick" Howard. Found this out by talking with our former/current Notary Director Betsy Anderson.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/21/12 11:59am
Msg #427556
Agree with Sandra.
I don't have time to research it and cannot prove it... but I have run across publications in the past that linked him as an adviser or legal counsel.
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 7/21/12 12:00pm
Msg #427559
Re: Agree with Sandra.
He was legal counsel.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/21/12 12:04pm
Msg #427561
Proof of Association to XYZ
http://www.futurelaw.net/our-consultants-futurelaw-page1.htm
Timothy Reiniger
Timothy Reiniger is the Director of FutureLaw's Digital Services Group. In this role, Tim is responsible for developing market opportunities in Virginia and the overall Capitol area, the federal agencies, and the international arena. He also serves as founder of US Trustmark Co. where he utilizes his unique legal and policy expertise to help business, government and the courts to navigate identity, privacy, and electronic signature trust issues in the networked digital economy.
Tim came to FutureLaw from the National Notary Association where he served as Executive Director for six years. In this role, he became a nationally recognized expert on the notary office and successfully advocated for path-breaking electronic notarization laws in Delaware, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia. He has testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, the California House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In addition, Tim has contributed a chapter on electronic notarization law to the 2008 American Bar Association book Foundations of Digital Evidence.
Before joining the National Notary Association, Tim practiced law in Manchester, New Hampshire where he also served three terms representing the downtown and historic millyard on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (1994-2000). He is a licensed attorney in both New Hampshire and California.
Tim brings ten years of valuable trial and appellate experience in commercial disputes, insurance coverage, personal injury, and employment law from previous positions with law firms in New Hampshire. Furthermore, he has a keen understanding of government relations, association management, and local government law from having served in public office and with the National Notary Association. In addition to his position with IA Corporation, Tim is a member of the FutureLaw Government Relations Team, the Tax Exempt Bond Financing Team, and the Economic Development and Business Services/Stimulus Programs Team.
Tim earned his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and holds a B.S.F.S., cum laude, in International Affairs from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He interned in the Washington, D.C office of U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy in 1984.
Page 1 | Page 2
FutureLaw, L.L.C.
1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 403
Richmond, Virginia 23226
804-225-5506 (Main Number)
888-252-6299 (Toll Free)
©2011, All Rights Reserved
SM: FutureLaw is a service
mark of FutureLaw, L.L.C.
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 7/21/12 12:12pm
Msg #427564
Re: Proof of Association to XYZ
Tks for proof. n/m
|
Reply by FGX/NJ on 7/21/12 12:34pm
Msg #427573
Re: Proof of Association to XYZ
Here is bio for Dr. Hansberg and the other members of FutureLaw Consulting group.
http://futurelawconsulting.us/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=55
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 7/21/12 2:27pm
Msg #427584
Re: Proof of Association to XYZ
The correct name of the other person is Chip Dick and not A E Howard as I had stated in earlier post . My mined must be going faster than I thought! lol
|
Reply by FGX/NJ on 7/21/12 6:43pm
Msg #427605
Re: Proof of Association to XYZ
Sandra
I think his name is John Dicks another member of FutureLaw.
It seems that the three driving forces behind this law are Hansberger, Reiniger and Dicks, all consultants of FutureLaw.
From a conversation with Dr. Hansberger they are sure that the law allows Notarization anywhere in the USA. As he said "we wrote the law". The first Notarization was done by Reiniger 18 minutes after midnight July for a client in Ca.
Evidentltly quite legal in Va. By long established precedent, Notarizations legal in any state are accepted in all states.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/21/12 9:21pm
Msg #427613
Re: Proof of Association to XYZ
"From a conversation with Dr. Hansberger they are sure that the law allows Notarization anywhere in the USA. As he said "we wrote the law". The first Notarization was done by Reiniger 18 minutes after midnight July for a client in Ca."
Imho, this is going to be a very interesting case law showdown at some point.
|
Reply by VT_Syrup on 7/22/12 6:50am
Msg #427626
Legal in all states?
People often quote the Constitution, Article IV section 1, which says "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State;" but they often don't quote the rest of the sentence, "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof". But congress has, so far as I know, passed any law about interstate recognition of notarial acts. So the states can make their own laws until Congress acts. For example, many states only recognize oaths, affirmations, and acknowledgements notarized in another state, and marriages conducted by notaries where that is legal, but not other notarial acts such as signature witnessing.
So states have a few options they could try, such as not recognizing web notarizations whether done by one of their state's notaries or a notary of another state. Or state A could require that whenever a notary performs an act for a person physically located in the state A, the notary must obey all notary laws of both state A and the laws of the commissioning state. State A could further require the document must be for use in the commissioning state.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 7/21/12 12:37pm
Msg #427574
Thanks, Sandra. I guess we know who was the force
in getting this passed in VA. I am still suspect of where they plan to go with this. I'm not against electronics, but I still don't see how this can be used inter-state, as some companies are promoting it.
I find it interesting that they are claiming this will be a greater deterrent to fraud than paper notarizations. Smells on NNA to me.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/21/12 1:22pm
Msg #427581
Re: Thanks, Sandra. I guess we know who was the force
*I still don't see how this can be used inter-state, as some companies are promoting it.*
I do not know either...I just wished that I had time and resources to pursue it. I am not against webcam notarizations because of the gun to head stuff. I feel that it has turned into the wild west of law and that there will be case law, civil suits, and maybe even criminal charges that involve notaries in this experimental territory. Greed disarms better judgment...I prefer a highly cautious approach.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/21/12 11:23pm
Msg #427621
Re: Thanks, Sandra. I guess we know who was the force
At first blush ('cause I haven't studied this issue at any great length), it seems to me that the key differences don't have anything to do with inter-state signings or where the signer is located, but rather the nature of the documents and the type of ID required.
Two details that stood out to me (vaguely, I should probably add...) are that the document itself was digital (perhaps stored "in the cloud") and that there was some requirement for previous establishment of identity, either by personal knowledge or via biometrics or whatever the PIV thing was. Seems to me to be very different from what the other clowns were claiming to be able to do, which I understood was to have anyone anywhere contact them and be notarized via a webcam, as long as they could accept an electronic stamp. Again, just my impressions so far.
|
Reply by VT_Syrup on 7/22/12 7:04am
Msg #427627
Re: nature of document
I think it was astute of Janet to notice the document itself has to be digital. Notarynow, that created all the uproar in the past now have a section of their web site about "Is it Legal?". Some questions and answers they have are:
>Can people in every state accept online notarizations?
>Yes, documents notarized in Virginia by an online notary are legally valid in all 50 states.
My comment: Most land record offices only accept paper documents, so this doesn't mostly doesn't apply to land records.
>What does my online notarization look like?
>You get an electronic original signed PDF that you can give to whoever needs it. If you need to print a copy, feel free, it looks just like a typical notarization.
My comment: Clearly under ESIGN and UETA complete digital copies of digitally signed electronic documents that preserve all the security information are treated as if they were original documents. But it is an open question whether a paper copy of a digital document would be considered an original. Also, the copy does not look like a typical notarization because there is no indentation in the paper from the ballpoint pens that most people use to sign original paper documents.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 7/22/12 4:03pm
Msg #427657
Re: nature of document
I like Janet's and VT's posts here.
****>Yes, documents notarized in Virginia by an online notary are legally valid in all 50 states.
VT's comment: Most land record offices only accept paper documents, so this doesn't mostly doesn't apply to land records. ***
However, Marian specifically says in Msg #425558 that she has no complaints about recording documents after notarizing them electronically and printing them out. I agree with your position, VT, but Marian obviously has a different experience.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 7/22/12 11:05am
Msg #427648
Good point, Janet. I'm not tech-savvy enough to be able to
grasp the entire concept. I also didn't catch the document needed to be digitial.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/22/12 5:12pm
Msg #427665
Re: Good point, Janet. I'm not tech-savvy enough to be able to
If you think about it, that's the only way the notary could apply their "seal". You can't exactly place a stamp on a page across cyberspace.  Seems to me they would have to be electronically linked.
|
