Talk:Notary public

old stuff

A civil law notary is NOT called a Notary Public, so should there be a separate entry for civil law notary.Alex756 09:16 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I have to disagree. An attorney-at-law in the US is not he same as a barrister in England, but they fulfil analagous functions, and, unless you are going to break down every legal category into tiny sub-distinctions, I think it is appropriate to deal with civil law notaries and notaries public in common law jurisdictions. Legis 13:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that the articles should be merged or kept apart? Both of you need to be more precise about what you want. I personally feel that they should be kept separate with appropriate cross-references explaining the other type of notary and pointing to the other article. A common law notary public is very different from a civil law notary. In almost all of the United States, a notary public is not a lawyer, while a civil law notary is considered to be a civil law jurist (that is, a legal professional who performs quasi-lawyer functions). --Coolcaesar 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the civil law traditions, both civil law advocates and civil law notaries are considered to perform lawyerly functions, albeit different and sometimes overlapping. (As an interesting sidenote, in Canada, both Quebec advocates and Quebec notaries societies are member societies of the Canadian Bar Association, whereas provincial notary public societies are not.) --Aquarius Rising 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A traditional difference between notaries and lawyers is notaries do not go to court and are involved in noncontroversial matters. Lawyers on the other hand are involved in controversy and go to court. Lawyers argue and debate, notaries do not. They are clearly different professions, that is the reason there is so much resistance among notaries in states like North Carolina where the Bar refuses to recognize the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.17 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

State specific sections?

I do not feel that the various "state specific" sections i.e. Virginia and California are particularly useful to a reader of this article. It would be better to keep a more generic description of a Notary Public with some refrences to areas that can vary from state to state.

I would like to hear other opinions before editing the article accordingly. --Gblaz

I think your proposal is a good idea. I think that it would be best to merge them into a generic description of American notary publics, with digressions for interesting facts from specific states. See Department of Motor Vehicles for an example of what I mean. --Coolcaesar 07:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like alot of state overload versus the rest of the article.--Roadkillu

I came to this article specifically looking for information about notarising documents in Wisconsin. Mainly because other sources are unreliable, and it's an area where search engines will flood you with commercial sites. So I believe it's important for the state-specific sections to be kept, however it may de-clutter the article to hive them off into a separate entry. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

O-3 and above?

It says the in the US, officers O-3 are public Notaries, is this limited to only o-3 officers, or anything above o-3

Lawyers

"In almost all countries notaries are required to be experienced and additionally trained lawyers or to have undergone a long period of training to specifically be a notary. However, in 48 of the 50 US states (the exceptions being Louisiana and, to a degree, Florida) notaries public are not necessarily lawyers, which has led to acts performed by US notaries being regarded with some suspicion in other countries. Having said that, it should in fairness be noted that Louisiana (and lately to a limited degree Florida) notaries are well regarded." WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? In Louisiana, may nonlawyer notaries prepare legal documents? The accepted practice apparently is yes. The Louisiana attorney and notary statutes say no. "well regarded" means what? Is there any precedent case law or Louisiana Attorney General opinion on this?

I've removed the "well-regarded" sentence. I think it was trying to say that other countries are okay with notaries in these two states, who are lawyers. But it was pretty clumsy, and the thought can be easily inferred. If it does go back in, a source would be nice. John Broughton 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Often in countries a notary is also a lawyer, but in almost all these countries only 3 years (as opposed to 7 years as is normal in the US) of schooling is necessary to become a notary. Some poor third world countries have what they call lawyers that only have an equivalent of a high school diploma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.17 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'anywhere in the world'

"Generally speaking, a notary public ... may be described as an officer of the law ... whose public office and duty it is to draw, attest or certify under his official seal, for use anywhere in the world..."

Only apostiled or legalized documents can be used abroad and be officially regarded as notarized. I deleted 'for use anywhere in the world'.

German notaries more important in daily life than USA notaries?

user:62.158.35.130 wrote in the article that

In comparison to the USA or UK the role of the German notary is much more important in daily business. All property transactions must be signed and sealed at the office of the notary public (§ 311 b of the German Civil Code).

But most USA property transactions must also be signed and sealed by a notary, so how is it that the German notary is more important than the USA notary in dailiy life? --Gerry Ashton 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. My understanding (this is very rough) is that civil law notaries actually draft documents, so they need to have some legal training. In some countries like France they are also the caretakers of such documents. In contrast, in the United States, attorneys draft and hold on to all the documents that notaries handle in other countries, so here, notaries only sign and seal documents. Not much legal training is required for that! Basically they own a seal and they have to be prepared to testify that they saw a certain document on a certain date.

Also, American notaries usually are not the primary caretaker of most documents. Either they're filed with the county clerk/recorder (as is the case with practically all real property transactions), or the attorney keeps them in a special file (usually for wills and trusts). --Coolcaesar 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, USA notaries may indeed play a smaller role than German notaries, but not for the reason stated in the article. The article implies that USA real estate transactions are not notarized, which is wrong. --Gerry Ashton 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana

I have commented out the Louisiana section. It stated that Louisiana notaries could do anything lawyers could do except appear in court. Such a statement, if incorrect, could seriously mislead a reader foolish enough to depend on Wikipedia for legal information.

I put a fact template on the section four days ago, but no citation to support the claim has been added, which is why I have commented out the text. --Gerry Ashton 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

State specific sections

The state specific sections need to be seriously trimmed and summarized. There is no reason to provide such intricate details about everything respecting notaries in the U.S. Peyna 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response HarvardOxon about edits to this article

User:HarvardOxon added the edit summary "no, this is NOT the same as every other state..please find out what you're talking about before you remove huge chunks of articles"

And then added below to the article.

"Notaries are commissioned by the Secretary of State of the State of New York, through the Division of Licensing Services, for four year terms (and are then eligible for reappointment)."

This is not notable. Many sates have four year terms such as California.

"Applicants must be citizens of the United States (this provision is unconstitutional under Bernal v. Fainter and cannot be enforced) and either residents of the State of New York or have a business in the state."

Again this applies to many states. In addition Bernal v. Fainter was a case against texas and not new york. This also has precedence over the nation and not just New York, again, this is not state specific.

"The law requires that an applicant 'be of good moral character, has the equivalent of a common school education and is familiar with the duties and responsibilities of a notary public.' (Executive Law, §130) In practice, this means that the applicant must pass a brief examination on notary procedure and law (such examinations are given often - monthly or weekly - at locations around the state), and not have a criminal record that includes any felony convictions at all, draft dodging, or any misdemeanors that involve firearms, drugs, burglars tools or illegal entry, aiding a prison escape, prostitution, vagrancy or most laws involving the integrity of judicial proceedings (perjury, forgery and the like) (Executive Law §130, Public Officers Law §3)."

This also applies to many states if not other countries. How does this section only apply to New York? Do other states allow ill moral character by people who have no common school education, doesn’t know anything about being a notary, and is a criminal? This may seem notable to some New York citizens but its standard procedure for most other states and countries. Notaries in most states in the US must also pass a brief examination.

"By a quirk of New York law that bars them from holding any other office, sherrifs may not be appointed notaries.(§13(a) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of New York.)"

This is possibly the only section that applies to New York only.

There have been complaints about the length of the article and why so much detail about each state. In an effort to help produce a quality article I'm removing the redundant information. --I already forgot 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This article should be about what a notary is and what they do, but it doesn't need to be a Restatement. Peyna 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If it all "applies to every state" then a) give me the reference, because specific requirements are different, state to state -- you excised info about bonding, record keeping etc. --- well, this varies vastly state to state; b) excising it completely from the article doesn't make sense, place it in a section of what applies to every state; 3) "not notable" is relative...many countries have legislatures with 2 years terms, should the 2 year term of a congressman not be included in an article on congress? Not every state has the same set of terms. I don't know why people are 'comaplaining about length." THis is an article about legal matters, which get quite specific and the specifics do matter, and in the US, specifics can vary widely state to state. For instance, who commissions a notary. This is an encyclopedia, and the entry should be encyclopedic...it is not a dictionary that demands merely a four line definition. The article as it stands is basically useless for people trying to determine what makes a notary in virginia different from a notary in NY -- a notary is a guy who signs a paper and stamps it, is about as much as you get. Artclesw should b3e edited by people who actually know something about the subject -- info that does't interest you personally is not thereby rendered useless. Who, by the way, authorized somebody to wipe out vast portions of an article with no discussion, first...and if length is the issue, why was the long, redundant and partially irrelevant section on Australia left intact? This all smacks of an amteurish attitude, and approaches vandalism. Please revert it.HarvardOxon 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to highlight the uniqueness of notaries in New York in one paragraph. Provide a cite to the laws governing them if you wish, but we don't need to cover every single aspect of it, because they are not all notable. We could go to the lawyer article and copy and paste in the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, but is it really needed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peyna (talk • contribs) .

(edit conflict) Where did I state "applies to every state"? Which of my statements do you want referenced and I will supply it.

Just because each state is different on how to become a notary doesn’t make it a notable mention. For example: mentioning a bond is not required to be a notary is not notable and is an overlapping statement to other states that do not require a bond such as Colorado.[1] Calling my edits "amteurish"(sic) and vandalism is a personal attack and is counter productive so I will go no further addressing your points. If you wish to engage in constructive edits to improve the article I would be more than happy to RV my edits and work with you from there, but at this point you can make your own changes. --I already forgot 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External link removal

The site www.statenotary.info was removed because User:Haakon thought it was linkspam. I looked at the site; I didn't see any ads, nor did the owners of the site appear to be selling anything. Therefore I have restored the link. If someone thinks it should be removed, or replaced with a better overview of US notaries, please explain. --Gerry Ashton 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The site sells links, or I should say that they make money from click through google links and such. Since the state info is being reduced, I replaced the link with one that is far more comprehensive on how to become a notary in each state.--I already forgot 04:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:I already forgot has failed to provide convincing evidence that www.statenotary.info is linkspam. The new link is to the National Notary Association (NNA), which clearly provides better information than statenotary.info. Of course, NNA is also a vendor of a wide range of notary supplies, education, insurance, etc., so the site could be described as linkspam, but it's useful linkspam. By the way, I have no affiliation with either site. --Gerry Ashton 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Convincing evidence for whom? The site was added by a link spammer, that’s proof in itself as to the value of the site. The site also has more paid links/spam than other other type of content. I added the NNA site as a compromise since the site provides more details on how to become a notary in each state.--I already forgot 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I discovered that my browser settings were so strict that the paid links did not appear. When I temporarily made my settings more lenient, I was able to see the paid links. --Gerry Ashton 17:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NNA arguably falls under the same category of linkspam as www.statenotary.info. When first added, NNA contained an affiliate ID which was removed in a subsequent update (&referID=A23753). Additionally site visitors must enroll to become a notary via their brokerage/insurance agency. Although they claim to be an "organization" they are an insurance agency, or at least closely associated with one. Prospective notaries must obtain/use their applications vs. applications provided by the State. Spam is spam, useful or not.

I'm no fan of the NNA, but they do provide useful summaries of state rules and contact information for the commissioning officers in the various states. The word "must" really does not apply; the prospective notary can just follow the link to the appropriate state official and bypass the NNA altogether. --Gerry Ashton 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no fan of the NNA either. They are a giant corporation full of misinformation. But that is for a different topic. What about a page that just listed the state's sites, like http://www.notaryone.net/become-a-notary-public.html only maybe with JUST the state info listed?(disclaimer, I work at this business. But I consider myself an expert in this feild...been in the "notary" business for way too long) -- Roadkillu 10 Oct 2006

A site that did not use ActiveX controls would be better. --Gerry Ashton 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is that? I'm not exactly up on my nerd-lingo (no offense). Is it because of that quote tool thing? --Roadkillu 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An ActiveX control allows a web page to do something on the viewer's computer, rather than just show text. Some problems are that these pages may not display properly on non-Windows computers, or in browsers other than Internet Explorer. Also, many users restrict what web pages can do on their computers to try to protect themselves from spyware, tracking cookies, etc. Thus, when they go to a site that uses ActiveX controls, they must decide whether to manually relax the restrictions for that site, or not. If they are in a school or workplace, they may not be able to relax the restrictions, because the systems may be set up so that only computer administrators can relax the restrictions. --Gerry Ashton 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Notaryone has also link spammed wikipedia on many occasions. There are numerous independent notaries and signing companies that can whip a list of links or state specific information on there site for link inclusion here. So to avoid having every notary website in the world adding their link for inclusion on this page to increase search ranking, I added the NNA site since they have been around for many decades, are well established (no need to linspam), one of the most predominant notary information companies in the world, and are specifically in the business of providing notary information through books and other media.--I already forgot 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are links to enotary.org (link broken) and the Pennsylvania association of notaries useful? Oh, I know, I can get a Penn Assoc. credit card! yay! I'm sure that's what readers want. Two broken, crappy links, I post three actual usefull links and they get deleted? This page needs serious, serious work. Roadkillu 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Solemnize the rites of matrimony (Marriage)

I have reverted the edits of two unregistered users, User:141.150.47.104 and User:151.198.159.219 because they claim that Notary Public cannot Solemnize the rites of matrimony (Marriage ceremony) that only Priests, Ministers and Justices of the Peace are permitted which is totally and completely false, I direct you to Florida Secretary of State, Maine Secretary of State Notary Public handbook on Pages 8 and 9-10 and the South Carolina Secretary of State on Line 12 all state clearly that in these states Notary Public can Solemnize the rites of matrimony. Now that I have provided sufficient proof please don't change this again. Misterrick 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources of your information should be put into the article as references. Just in case you are not familar with the process, I'll do the first one as an example. --Gerry Ashton 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am already doing that right now. Misterrick 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the one from Florida from a general item in the reference list to a footnote at the end of the appropriate sentence. In case you haven't seen it before, n.d. means no date, since the Florida web page did not contain a date. --Gerry Ashton 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the Maine and South Carolina references to conform with the way you have the Florida Secretary of State reference set. Misterrick 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding A Notary Section

I just added this new section, because so many people I talk with are clueless as to where to find a notary, or get a document notarized. The bank really is the best cheapest place to get a document notarized (usually no fee), followed by a UPS type store. I listed a few of the top directories for locating a mobile notary as well. Roadkillu 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I think this should be a subsection under United States, because I'm sure it does not apply to many parts of the world.

Second, I think the mention of specific web sites to find notaries belongs under External Links, if it is appropriate at all.

Finally, it should be mentioned that some government offices, such as Vermont town clerks, will notarize documents for free. --Gerry Ashton 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? Do we really need a section telling people to do a google search? Its a weak entry.--I already forgot 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think including the information in the article will help people find free ways of getting notarial services, because the expensive services (mobile notary web sites) have an advertising budget and the free sources do not advertise. And of course, advertising payments influlence placement in searches results. --Gerry Ashton 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)I find the addition of the section more of an advertisement, espicially because you added the typical notaryone linkspam. I kept it in the article anyway but removed the linkspam stuff and moved it to the United States section.--I already forgot 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here actually work as a mobile notary? And the phone book? Are you serious?! This is 2007, not 1990. Please explain how our free service to connect people with a notary is a bad thing? Or the links to the notary directories I listed? Those are the top ways to find a notary in the country. Debate. Roadkillu 08:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-four hour Internet notary paragraphs?

User:Wifistudios tells us, in the last two paragraphs of Notary public#Finding a Notary that by using Real Notary "you can access your personal notary online 24 hours a day via the Internet" and "This legal online notary process is allowed by the 'Electronic Notarization Act' of Florida since July 1, 2000, Section 1 of Senate Bill 1334, and can be found at: [2].

If this is meant to tell us that a person can have a Florida notary administer an oath or take an acknowledgement without meeting the constituent in person, I believe it is wrong. Reading the cited law, one realizes it is Florida's implementation of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The organization that proposes uniform state laws, NCCUSL, refers to the a University of Pennsylvania law web [3], site. That site comments that the UETA

...permits a notary public and other authorized officers to act electronically, effectively removing the stamp/seal requirements. However, the section does not eliminate any of the other requirements of notarial laws, and consistent with the entire thrust of this Act, simply allows the signing and information to be accomplished in an electronic medium.

For example, Buyer wishes to send a notarized Real Estate Purchase Agreement to Seller via e-mail. The notary must appear in the room with the Buyer, satisfy him/herself as to the identity of the Buyer

The organization that proposed the law, the NCCUSL, is described in a Wikipedia article. --Gerry Ashton 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio, we need to purge this from the article

I just got an excellent book on the history of notaries in medieval England out of the public library. I was about to add a cite when I realized the entire History section has to be purged first as a copyright violation. It appears that at least two or three pages were simply copied wholesale into the article, which is not fair use under U.S. copyright law and probably not fair dealing under copyright law in most other countries either.

So if no one objects, I'm going to purge that entire section in a week or two.

Just for the record, I was planning to add the following: The common law never developed a reliance upon the notary to the same degree as the civil law. This was because during the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages in England, most people were illiterate. As a workaround for the scarcity of scribes, the English developed a legal tradition emphasizing the execution of symbolic legal ceremonies that were witnessed by the entire community or a large portion thereof. The very presence of a large number of witnesses was itself believed to be sufficient protection against fraud. Thus, early written records of such ceremonies were initially treated as mere "precautionary evidence rather than, strictly, as instruments of conveyance." Although the concept of the notary was eventually imported into England by the Catholic Church, it was always an awkward fit with the already-existing system of common law. The competition between notaries publics and the various types of legal professionals in England resulted in the radically different role of notaries public in common law countries versus their civil law counterparts.

The source is: C.R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England: In the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 5-14. --Coolcaesar 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that source. Is there any possiblity that either the 1972 edition is just the latest edition of a book that was first published so long ago that the passage is now in the public domain? Or perhaps Cheney quoted it from a public domain source? --Gerry Ashton 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you've totally misconstrued the situation! If you actually read the Notary public article, you'll see that much of the History section is a verbatim quotation from Brooke's Notary. The History section right now has nothing to do with the Cheney book I got out of the library. My proposal is that the entire current History section needs to be deleted as a copyright violation and that a new History section has to be drafted. The proposed passage above is of my own composition, but it is essentially a paraphrasing of the Cheney source I cited. Essentially I'm saying we've got a copyvio and I'm proposing a new freshly drafted and sourced passage to replace the copyvio.

As for Brooke's Notary, that work continues to be regularly revised and republished, so it is definitely not in the public domain. Furthermore, even if the earliest editions are in the public domain, they are likely to be inaccurate (what passed for historical scholarship in the 1920s is a far cry from what is considered to be good historical work today). --Coolcaesar 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that www.amazon.co.uk is currently selling the 13th revised edition, so it seems likely that the 12th edition that is quoted in the article is not public domain. The quote is longer than you usually see, but I'm not sure if it is long enough to be a copyright violation. Surely it is only a tiny fraction of the original work, and I doubt it would reduce sales of the original work. --Gerry Ashton 18:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But the passage quoted from Brooke's Notary, as well as the article as a whole, fails to explain why the notary public became such a different kind of legal professional as opposed to the civil law notary. That's a key issue that needs to be addressed and should be addressed in the History section (it is a HUGE problem that there are two kinds of notaries because a lot of immigrants to the United States do not understand that notaries cannot perform the functions of an attorney). Furthermore, I've been reading other books and articles on the history of notaries and the passage as it stands glosses over a lot of the embarrassing parts, such as the fact that the profession of notary completely disappeared in Western Europe during the Dark Ages. The profession was recreated only during the Renaissance after enough wealthy Europeans found the time to study old Roman law books and learned about the concept of the Roman notary. Rather than try to make piecemeal edits to an inaccurate passage drawn directly from a copyrighted work, it seems easier to me to just delete it and draft a properly sourced passage from scratch. --Coolcaesar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you've read a great deal more about it than I have. I agree that the absence of notaries from England for hundreds of years, and the way this lead to different roles under civil vs. common law, is well worth mentioning. --Gerry Ashton 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable accuracy of South Carolina information

I won't attach any tags, nor will I edit it myself since it would be original research, but as a notary public for the state of South Carolina, I'm almost positive the passage on SC is incorrect. What happens is a state legislator must bring your commission in front of the General Assembly, who vote on them en masse usually. I wrote a letter addressed to my county delegation, and received back a letter from my state senator informing me that he had approved and sent my nomination to the legislature. The Secretary of State is notified of the appointment, and his office issues the certificate, bearing his and the governor's signature. Beyond that, the governor has no part in the process. The ten year term is correct, though, and we do perform weddings here. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 09:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The South Carolina law that can be viewed at http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back303.html seems to say that a county can allow individual legislators to nominate notaries, or all the county legislators can vote to nominate notaries. Apparently counties can change the method by notifiying the secretary of state about the change. I suggest you read that law and see if it agrees with your experience. --Gerry Ashton 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Notary public From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Commissioner of oaths)

English notaries [are] not to be confused with commissioners of oaths

Can someone with some legal knowledge clear this up? We should look into the possible need for a seperate article for Commissioners of Oaths in English law.

I don't know anything about English law. I can tell you that many states have an office called "Commissioner of Oaths"; people from other states would be appointed as Commissioners of Oaths and would perform functions similar to a notary, but would act in the other states on documents that are to be sent to the appointing state. I don't know, but I suspect the office is a relic and few, if any, people are appointed to the office in modern times. Also, some states, such as Vermont, allow their notaries to act out of state on documents that are to be recorded in the state, so their notaries are effectively commissioners of oaths too. --Gerry Ashton 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a gnomic statement. A wide variety of lawyers and paralegals in England and Wales are, ex officio, also "Commissioners for Oaths:" barristers (practicing and non-practicing), solicitors, notaries public, legal executives and licenced conveyancers. Solicitors firms sometimes call themselves "Solicitors and Commissioners for Oaths." NRPanikker (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The terms are not identical. In Ontario, a Commission of Oaths cannot perform the functions of a notary public. Peter Grey (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this page will be most useful for finders of Notary public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbalaj (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notarizing family members signatures

I am a Notary in Tennessee..can I notarize my family members signature?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.54.42 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it could be seen as a conflict of interest to "notarize" a family member or close fried's document. But you should check with a local attorney who is actually qualified to give you advice on that.Ratherthanlater (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Notary Authority Statutes for 50 U.S. States

I'm sorry I have not the time to make this Wiki-friendly, but maybe someone else has the time to make a pretty table out of this?

LexisNexis 50 State Comparative Legislation / Regulations

Notaries Public (February 2008)

STATE Section Cite Subject matter
AL Statutes: Code of Ala. § 36-20-1 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: Ala. Admin. Code r. 820-6-1-.01 et seq Civil Law-Notaries Division
AK Statutes: Alaska Stat. § 44.50.010 et seq Notaries Public
AZ Statutes: A.R.S. § 41-311 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: A.A.C. § R2-12-1101 et seq Notary Public Bonds and Fees A.A.C. § R2-12-1201 et seq Electronic Notary
AR Statutes: A.C.A. § 21-14-101 et seq Notaries Public
CA Statutes: Cal Bus & Prof Code § 22454 et seq Professional Photocopiers; Notary Public Requirement Cal Fam Code § 530 et seq Approval of Notaries to Authorize Confidential Marriages Cal Gov Code § 8200 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: 2 CCR 20800 et seq Notary Public
CO Statutes: C.R.S. 12-55-101 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: 8 CCR 1505-11 Rules Concerning Electronic Notarization
CT Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-94a et seq Notaries Public Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-33a Issuance of Certificate of Authority, justices of peace, notaries and Superior Court commissioners
DE Statutes: 15 Del. C. § 216 Department of Elections; Notaries Public 29 Del. C. § 4301 et seq Notaries Public
DC Statutes: D.C. Code § 1-1201 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: CDCR 17-2400 et seq Notaries Public
FL Statutes: Fla. Stat. § 116.35 et seq Notary Public Commissions; Notary Fees; Notaries Public; International Notaries Regulations: 1C-18.001, F.A.C. Civil Law-Notary
GA Statutes: O.C.G.A. § 45-17-1 et seq Notaries Public
GU Statutes: 5 GCA § 33101 et seq Notaries Public
HI Statutes: HRS § 456-1 et seq Notaries Public
ID Statutes: Idaho Code § 51-101 et seq Notary Public
IL Statutes: 5 ILCS 312/1-101 et seq Notary Public Regulations: 14 Ill. Adm. Code 176 et seq Notary Public Records
IN Statutes: Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 33-42-1-1 et seq Notaries Public
IA Statutes: Iowa Code § 9E.1 et seq Notarial Acts Regulations: 721 IAC 43.1(9E) et seq Notarial Acts
KS Statutes: K.S.A. § 53-101 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: K.A.R. § 7-43-1 et seq Electronic Notarization
KY Statutes: KRS § 423.010 et seq Notaries Public and Commissioners of Foreign Deeds
LA Statutes: La. R.S. 35:1 et seq Notaries Public and Commissioners
ME Statutes: 4 M.R.S. § 951 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: CMR 29-250-700 Rules Governing Eligibility and Procedures for Appointment and Renewals of Notaries Public
MD Statutes: Md. STATE GOVERNMENT Code Ann. § 18-101 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: COMAR 01.02.08.01 et seq Notary Public Fees
MA Statutes: ALM GL ch. 222, § 1 et seq Justices of the Peace and Notaries Public ALM GL ch. 262, § 41 Costs and Fees; Notaries Public
MI Statutes: MCLS § 16.133 Notaries Public; Delegation of Power MCLS prec § 55.261 et seq Notaries Public
MN Statutes: Minn. Stat. § 357.17 Notaries Public Minn. Stat. § 359.01 et seq Notaries Public
MS Statutes: Miss. Code Ann. § 25-33-1 et seq Notaries Public
MO Statutes: § 486.100 R.S.Mo. et seq Commissioners of Deeds and Notaries Public Regulations: 15 CSR 30-100.010 et seq Notary Commissions
MT Statutes: Mont. Code Anno., § 1-5-401 et seq Notaries Public; Notarial Acts Regulations: MONT. ADMIN. R. 44.15.101 et seq Notary Publics
NE Statutes: R.R.S. Neb. § 33-102 Notary Public; Fees R.R.S. Neb. § 33-133 Notary Public; Fees; Government Employees R.R.S. Neb. § 64-101 et seq Notaries Public
NV Statutes: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 240.001 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: NAC 240.010 et seq Notaries Public
NH Statutes: RSA 455:1 et seq Notaries Public and Commissioners RSA 456-B:1 et seq Uniform Law on Notarial Acts
NJ Statutes: N.J. Stat. § 52:7-10 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.10 Notary Public Service
NM Statutes: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-12A-1 et seq Notary Public Regulations: 1.18.370.311 NMAC Notary Public Application and Current Bond Fund Files 1.18.370.322 NMAC Notary Public Application 1.18.370.351 NMAC Notary Public Listings
NY Statutes: NY CLS County § 534 County clerk; appointment of notaries public NY CLS Exec § 130 et seq Department of State; Appointment, Certificates, Signatures, Powers, and Duties of Notaries
NC Statutes: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 10B-1 et seq Notaries Regulations: 18 N.C.A.C. 7B.0101 et seq Notary Public Division
ND Statutes: N.D. Cent. Code, § 44-06-01 et seq Notaries Public
OH Statutes: ORC Ann. 147.01 et seq Notaries Public
OK Statutes: 49 Okl. St. § 1 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: O.A.C. § 655:25-1-1 et seq Notary Public
OR Statutes: ORS § 194.005 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: Or. Admin. R. 160-100-0000 et seq Notaries Public
PA Statutes: 42 Pa.C.S. § 6105 Acts of Notaries Public 57 P.S. § 31a et seq Notaries Public
PR Statutes: 4 L.P.R.A. § 2001 et seq Notarial Practice
RI Statutes: R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-30-1 et seq Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace
SC Statutes: S.C. Code Ann. § 8-21-140 Fees of Notaries Public S.C. Code Ann. § 26-1-10 et seq Notaries Public and Acknowledgment
SD Statutes: S.D. Codified Laws § 18-1-1 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: ARSD 5:04:03:01 et seq Notaries Public
TN Statutes: Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-16-101 et seq Notaries Public Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-21-1201 Fees Charged; Notaries Public Regulations: Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 1360-7-2-.01 Notary Publics
TX Statutes: Tex. Gov't Code § 406.001 et seq Notary Public Regulations: 1 TAC § 87.1 et seq Notary Public 28 TAC § 252.501 et seq Notaries Without Bond
UT Statutes: Utah Code Ann. § 46-1-1 et seq Notaries Public Reform Regulations: U.A.C. R154-10-502 Notary Acknowledgment by Electronic Communication
VT Statutes: 24 V.S.A. § 441 et seq Notaries Public
VA Statutes: Va. Code Ann. § 47.1-1 et seq Notaries and Out-of-State Commissioners
VI Statutes: 3 V.I.C. § 771 et seq Notaries Public
WA Statutes: Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 42.44.010 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: WAC § 308-30-005 et seq Notaries Public
WV Statutes: W. Va. Code § 29-4-3 et seq Notaries Public and Commissioners W. Va. Code § 29C-1-101 et seq Uniform Notary Act Regulations: W. Va. CSR § 153-22-1 et seq Rules of Procedure for Contested Case Hearings Dealing with Denials and Revocations of Notary Public Commissions
WI Statutes: Wis. Stat. § 20.919 Notary Public Wis. Stat. § 137.01 Notaries
WY Statutes: Wyo. Stat. § 32-1-101 et seq Notaries Public Regulations: WCWR 002-007-001 et seq Notary Rules Ratherthanlater (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentence clarification

Could "the other reason being that in England and Wales and many other common law jurisdictions in practice only matters with an international element need to involve notaries[3], and almost all notaries are also qualified lawyers. " in the overview section be split from the preceeding part of the sentence? Its long and slightly confusing at the end.

Sentence clarification

Could "the other reason being that in England and Wales and many other common law jurisdictions in practice only matters with an international element need to involve notaries[3], and almost all notaries are also qualified lawyers. " in the overview section be split from the preceeding part of the sentence? Its long and slightly confusing at the end. Fab 29/09/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.38.36 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

concerning self compliance against anyone

i would like to ask,does notary public concerned on self compliance against anyone???like for example, libelity???, does txt messages are valid proof to accused anyone???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.101 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

Looking through the article history, this article does not seem to observe any consistent citation format. Is there any opinion about what format would be most appropriate? In the absence of other opinions I would be inclined to use short footnotes based on the Chicago Manual of Style documentation one style. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Signatures and-notarization .gif Deleted

An image used in this article, File:Signatures and-notarization .gif, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Adrignola for the following reason: Mass deletion of copyright violations added by Shabany

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

US citizenship requirement and Bernal decision

Article cites Bernal as rendering the requirement be a US citizen unconstitutional.

The article does not note that at least 5 states still maintain that requirement: Kansas, Missouri (see page 16), Oklahoma, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

Since an encyclopedia is supposed to be fact based rather than aspirational, deviations from Bernal ought to be noted.