Posted by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/9/12 1:06am
Msg #437740

"liberal crud" & "brainless regulation"

The following is a letter written to the SOS during a public comment period on proposed legislation to allow rehabilitated felons to become notaries. The letter has nothing to do with that actually. There were four comments re the proposal (all against), and I think this letter got mixed up with those simply because it arrived during the public comment period. Anyway, it is both hilarious and painfully true. The really interesting part is the SOS response to it, which is also posted here (BTW I removed the CEO’s name even though it’s public information posted on the SOS Website):


Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:48AM
Dear Secretary Bowen,
I must say, the current regulations for notarizing documents are typical liberal crud. I further
understand that they are a personal wish of yours. How nice.
My assistant is a notary, licensed by your office .. and she regularly notarizes documents in our office. The new regulations you have promulgated of entering separate lines for each and every page (even if in the same document), each entry completely filled out (no "tick" marks to indicate that the same info is carried through) are classic b.s. that bureaucrats need to keep themselves busy. The problem is, my assistant has enough real work to keep her busy, without filling out useless spaces in her log to make your minions happy.
It is completely ludicrous that over 80 per cent of the entries in her log are for me, her employer, who she presumably knows, and yet your brainless regulation requires her to write in my complete address, drivers license number and finger print EACH AND EVERY TIME.
She spent three hours filling out her book after my father and I signed loan documents today. That is ridiculous and typical of why business leaves California in droves. I have actual work for her to do. Instead, she was doing yours. Should I send you a bill for her time?
I know you don't care. I know you don't see the problem with this. I know that it is near and dear to your party to pile more regulation and process on us, but businesspeople in California are tired of it.
I'm sorry you won't wake up to this fact. Yours is the kind of thinking that is driving our state into the toilet.
Good luck as the Secretary of a state that is going bankrupt on and because of your watch.
Best Regards,
President & CEO

Here's the respons:

August 28, 2012
Comment No 4 The commenter objects to the requirements to maintain the notary journal with complete records of official acts. The commenter disagrees with the journal entry requirements that his employee must maintain, since over 80 percent of the entries are for me, their employer, and yet these regulations require them to write in my complete address, drivers license number and finger print each and every time".
Reject: Although the comment appears directed at the Secretary of State
regulations, the requirements objected to are mandated by law, not by
regulation. Government Code section 8206(a)(2), enacted by the Legislature
and Governor in 1992, specifically details what shall be included in the sequential
journal. The regulations the Secretary of State created merely mirror that law.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/9/12 9:29am
Msg #437766

From what I read from CA notaries, there certainly is

a lot of over-regulation. There seem to be notaries who are fueling that, too, by asking for more regulation. I can't imagine.
There is no way I'd have a separate journal entry for every document that requires notarization in a loan pkg., which usually averages between 8 to 18 notarizations. Yikes!
Don't the borrowers object to all the bureacracy?

Reply by jba/fl on 10/9/12 9:40am
Msg #437769

Re: From what I read from CA notaries, there certainly is

You can't convince me that a busy TC in CA is in full compliance with those regs. Sorry, I just don't believe it. They must be the ones refered to as not being in the loop with their journals. Law offices also....or maybe they skimp on affidavits?

Reply by Barb25 on 10/9/12 9:38am
Msg #437768

Aside from the fact that "nobody" noticed the letter was out of context. It was a great letter making valid arguments that appeared to be answered by a typical form letter. Be nice for the newspapers or News 6 (or whatever you call it out there) to get this one. But guess there is so much "stuff" waiting for that venue.

Reply by Barb25 on 10/9/12 10:02am
Msg #437775

Well forget the newspaper stuff. n/m

Reply by Belinda/CA on 10/9/12 10:02am
Msg #437774

3 hrs to fill out loan pkg journal enteries?

She must be writing backwards while holding it in front of a mirror. That and no methodology in her practices.

I do not enjoy the time spent to fill out my journal correctly. However, I could fill the whole thing out in less than 3 hours. The boss sounded like it seriously took that long.

Must be like that commercial where the Mom is making super easy rice crispy treats. When the family walks into the kitchen she tosses some flour on her face and looks exhausted while presenting them with the terribly difficult time consuming homemade treats. She worked so hard... Wonder how long it takes her to present the loan package?

Reply by Barbara A. Sayres on 10/9/12 10:15am
Msg #437780

Re: 3 hrs to fill out loan pkg journal enteries?

What I got out of his letter is that he and his father are the only signers that the notary notarizes for. She does this all day over and over again. The same documents. Perhaps for different people. Not just one loan. He does not make that very clear. Perhaps that is where the 3 hours come from. He also does not state his "business" only that he mentions loan documents that you have to surmise that it is related to loans.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/9/12 10:20am
Msg #437782

Maybe, but the point of the letter as I'm reading it is that

it's a big waste of time. IMO it is exactly that.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 10/9/12 10:25am
Msg #437783

Please, I was being humorous. However, he did say,

"She spent three hours filling out her book after my father and I signed loan documents today." Two people signed loan docs today. She took three hours on the journal.

No need to correct me.
Just a simple post by chance to cause someone to smile this morning.
Lighten up. It is a pretty day.

Reply by Barb25 on 10/9/12 11:00am
Msg #437788

Re: Please, I was being humorous. However, he did say,

Actually I love the humor. I loved the letter. I love this guy and the notaries of CA should try to get him elected for SOS... IMO.

But what do I know, I live in Florida.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 10/9/12 11:12am
Msg #437789

I agree, it is going to be a beautiful day.... n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 10/9/12 7:56pm
Msg #437832

I thought there was a lot of humor in that letter. I

think there's even more humor in CA notary laws! ;-) LOL

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 10/9/12 10:41am
Msg #437786

IMO, forgive me, but I always follow California notary Law

If I was ever involved in a fraudulend notarization, I would have all the evidence required to track down the signer, along with a thumbprint.
***For all of you who say, you'd never input that much information in a Notarial Journal", if it were your state Notary Law, I wonder how many of you would change your mind and follow Notary Law.
It is easy to complain when you don't have strict Notary Laws that you must follow; if you were required to follow these Notary Laws, I just have to wonder how many of you would resign your commission.....IMHO.
Stephanie

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 10/10/12 12:29am
Msg #437844

Stephanie, I believe that what many deem to be amazing and

at total waste of effort, is the "requirement" either by a poorly drafted law, overzealous
regulators, or super cautious notaries, is the fact of repeated recording of the same signer info on each line or a journal in the case of multiple notarizations for the same signer in a single transaction, such as a loan signing.
I can also see this as an onerous requirement in the case of a notary/employee, who is notarizing the signature of the same indiviuals on a reguar , recurring. basis.
As many have said, i am glad that i do not have to work as a NSA in CA.
But, hey, whatever floats your boat.
Hope all is well

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/9/12 11:39am
Msg #437792

Streamline journal entries?

The real objection (leaving aside the CA SOS's desire to make everything as difficult as possible) is that in a journal like the one sold by Notary Rotary with check boxes, the notary, or someone else, could add a check mark after leaving the signer. This could be made more difficult if there was yes/no box next to each type of instrument (mortgage, name affidavit, etc.) If the no box were checked for instruments that were not notarized, any alteration after-the-fact would be evident.

Of course, such a journal would be inconvenient for general notary work, so notaries who do mostly general notary work would want an old-fashioned journal.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 10/9/12 1:05pm
Msg #437799

Re: Streamline journal entries?It's a good thing you are not

located in California, since the Secretary of State is making everything as difficult as possible relating to the Notary Journal. (I'm just not sure you could handle it)

I always follow California notary Law. Period - end of story.
It's not difficult. You seem like a well-educated man - you would be able to adjust.
I use, as you put it, old-fashioned journals.
There is nothing wrong with an old-fashioned, as you put it, Notary journal.
Everyone runs their business as they wish. I do not think we, in CA, need advice on how to conduct ourselves from someone in Vermont. Period - end of story.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/9/12 1:45pm
Msg #437803

Re: Streamline journal entries?It's a good thing you are not

The though is about good ways for a manufacturer to print a journal. Since journals are sold across state lines, it affects notaries in all states.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 10/9/12 1:50pm
Msg #437805

But must conform to Notary State Law. n/m

Reply by janCA on 10/9/12 6:39pm
Msg #437825

Re: Streamline journal entries?It's a good thing you are not

I've been a notary since 2001. I have always done a line item for each notarization, it is no big deal, and I use the MOJO. I have 21 filled journals.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/9/12 10:44pm
Msg #437840

I agree, janCA

I've always done a line item for each notarization, too. Not sure why it's a big deal, either.

Reply by Barb25 on 10/10/12 7:06am
Msg #437852

Can I ask

What is MOJO? And did CA always have to line item each individual affidavit/acknowledgement at a single occurence? And did the signer have to provide a signature for each individual entry? Or was this something that started with the more recent changes in CA notary laws?

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/10/12 7:50am
Msg #437857

Re: Can I ask

MOJO stands for Modern Journal of Notarial Acts, the brand name of a journal sold by Notary Rotary. As you may have surmised, it has several little boxes on each line to tick off which documents were notarized in connection with that line of the journal. I don't own one myself; next time I'm shopping for journals I'll have to see what the boxes say and decide if they would be a good fit for the documents I've been seeing.

Reply by janCA on 10/10/12 8:26am
Msg #437861

Re: Can I ask

When I took a class at the local college to become a notary in '01, I was taught to do the line items. I really can't remember whether it was actually in the handbook. At that point in time, I ordered my supplies from NNA, (as many people do when they first start out), but once I discovered NR, in '03, I began ordering thehard-covered MOJO. I continued doing the line items with the MoJo and still do to this day.

Reply by Barb25 on 10/10/12 9:34am
Msg #437873

Well silly me.

I just looked at the front of my journal and that is the one I use. However since we are not even required to keep a journal in Florida it is convenient just to check off whick documents are in the package and add any others not listed. In my case I rarely do any GNW so it doesn't matter and I have other paperwork backing up my journal should the need ever arise. If I should do any GNW which as I said is extremely rare, I am very specific in my journal.

As to one of my original questions. Was it ALWAYS required in California that when you had a notarization where there were multiple documents (such as a loan signing) you needed not only to list the documents but to have signatures for each document listed. (I hope I said that clearly). That is what you have to do now, right? And if so, was this part of the recent changes?

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 10/10/12 10:48am
Msg #437894

I'm with Jan - in 2000, I was first commissioned - I have

always entered a line per sig notarized.
No biggie.