I'm not sure which is worse, the rant or the verbal attacks against the ranter... "Chill" is right! Let's please take the sniping and accusations back over to JP where they belong. (And BTW, I believe that anyone from a different state trying to interpret someone else's state law is frequently out of line.)
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to refer people back to the first item under "Satisfactory evidence" quoted in Clem's post. As I read it, the "absence of information..." is listed as a qualifier. So the disqualifier would be the PRESENCE of information, evidence, circumstance, etc. leading the notary to believe the person is NOT who (s)he claims to be. (And, of course, whatever else is required in the given situation.) The law doesn't say absolute proof is required, even though we all want to see that.
IMO, a missing initial is a gray area requiring a judgment call, which every notary has to make on the spot. But I don't see it as evidence that the person is NOT the same as the one named in the document all by itself. (A *different* initial shown might be.) Asking for further documentation (not to be used as the basis for identification, but for clarification) will likely either raise more questions and/or doubts, or answer them, leading the notary to a comfort level (s)he considers 'satisfactory', OR offering 'evidence' that would lead a reasonable person to doubt - and provide justification for walking. Others may interpret this differently, which is their right.
In my experience, the more the signer tries to intimidate, influence, brow beat, refer to what 'the other notary' did, etc., the less likely I'm going to feel comfortable proceeding. How they react has a lot to do with how I react (but the reverse can be true, too, so we need to be very careful here). In my entire notary career, I can think of only one time I left a signing because of that - and probably lost a client, too - but I think I made the right decision under the circumstances.
|
