Attention California Notaries! Please READ Threat and Respond Accordingly

To: Your CA Assemblyman / Senator

Subject: Opposition to AB 199 (Calderon) - California Online Notary Act of 2019

Dear: Honorable Your CA Assemlyman / Senator

I am a California resident, and I oppose the webcam and electronic notary bill for the reasons stated below. Please vote “NO” on AB 199 - Electronic Notarization Laws.

AB 199, if passed, will compromise notarial acts and ruin the careers of tens of thousands of notaries public. It will also burden small businesses already conducting electronic notarizations (“e-notarizations”).

The only purpose of AB 199 is to benefit a few high-tech companies by legalizing webcam notarizations (e.g., allowing the use of audio or video conferencing technology and recordings when performing notarial acts) and thus creating a governmentally sanctioned monopoly.

Why you must vote “NO” on AB 199:

Point 1- AB 199 permits “video and audio” recording as an acceptable method for identifying the signer. The use of webcam notarization will compromise notarial acts. Audio/Video can be created from anywhere by any means. The requirement that the signer be physically present is the basis of every notarial act and is necessary to ensure a valid notarization. A failure to require the physical presence of the signer contradicts the California Civil Code, which requires the signer to appear personally before the notary.

A notary’s duty is to ensure that the signer is competent, is not being coerced, and is signing the document freely and willingly. How can a notary using a webcam to perform a notarial act for an elderly person (for instance) ensure that the signer has not been coerced into signing a will or power of attorney by a criminally-minded family member or health care provider? The source of coercion may be present in the same room or nearby but not visible to the webcam notary. Furthermore, how can a notary ensure that an identification card has not tampered with without actually physically inspecting it? It cannot be done.

Point 2 - Economic Impact to the State. Notarize.com 's CEO, Pat Kinsel, located in the commonwealth of Virginia, has openly stated that by states not giving additional thought to policies of economic impact they will certainly (not maybe) be able to extract out of California $250 Million per year if Notarize.com only gets a conservative 25% share of the market. How so? Pat Kinsel of Notarize.com is calling the notary industry a $30 Billion Industry. Quick math says that California should see about a billion dollars of notarizations, then. If Notarize.com captures only 25% of the business that would be $250 Million. At the rate of $25 per remote notarization, the result is a $250 million loss to the California economy. Now, suppose that Notarize.com 's enterprise also has Texas and Nevada notaries, who launched remote notarization July 1, 2018, working on California notarizations as well. The result is the pie being cut up even more. This could apply to other remote notarization vendors like NotaryCam.com , also located in the commonwealth of Virginia, causing even greater losses to the California economy.

Point 3 - California already has electronic notarization laws in place under the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The use of the electronic notarization law under the CUET Act is serving the purpose for Californians and makes it affordable for California notaries and businesses to perform electronic notarizations using any technology the parties agree upon without government interference or regulations. AB 199 micromanages the electronic notarization process and is designed to benefit high-tech companies. There is no need for expensive, complex high-tech equipment as required by AB 199.

Point 4 - Issues of Liability and Responsibility. Is California okay with vendors operating a $250 Million business in California while disclaiming all liability and requiring “hold harmless” agreements? Visit their websites and read the terms of use, it’s interesting to say the least. Are we okay with companies conducting business within the borders of California not being liable, but the private citizen and notaries are? Are they aware that they are blatantly ignoring the jurisdiction of the courts?

Point 5 - AB 199 will affect the ability of tens of thousands of notaries and small businesses to earn a living. Webcam notarizations bound by the technology required in this bill will eliminate the need for thousands of notaries in the State of California, notaries who are your constituents. AB 199 will allow only a few high-tech companies to perform remote notarizations from a few remote locations (similar to call centers). Due to new requirements under this bill, individual notaries will not be able to afford to develop a similar technology. The market will be monopolized by a handful of technology companies.

Point 6 - This bill calls for a maximum fee of $25 for performing an e-notary act (a highly profitable business for webcam notarization companies); yet, California notaries are limited to $15 fees for paper notarial acts. This bill will contribute to ageism and classism. Online notary services appeal to the young and affluent. If these online notary companies take over the notary business, millions of Californians will be disenfranchised.

Based on the facts above, you can see the imminent harm that will be caused to notarial acts performed in this state, to your California notary constituents, businesses and to the public at large. If you can’t be persuaded against this harmful bill and the stringent technology requirements, please amend this bill and stipulate in this bill that:

  • Notarial acts performed for signers physically located in the state of California must be conducted by a CA notary, in person, remotely or otherwise.

Thank you for your time. PLEASE vote “NO” on AB 199.

Best regards,

Here is an email I received from Matt Miller whose an organizer whose defeated several other attempts in the past to change our industry for the worst based on techie fantasies.

“No, remote notarization is not the law in CA. AB199 has not even made it to committee. I killed the same bill in the senate judiciary committee last year (AB2368). Alex Padillia’s office is against it and so is the gov’s office. The push now is to amend the current civ code to read, “all notarial acts occurring in the state of CA must be conducted by a California notarial officer, in person, remotely or otherwise.” The state of Iowa has already made similar amendments to make remote notarization illegal in their state thus kicking out, out of state notaries. I wanted to reach out to you so that you wouldn’t feel excluded. I’ve already got the CA Bar, the CA Judges Assoc, the CA Assoc of Notaries, and many, many law firms, small businesses and private citizens onboard. The opposition will move ahead, with or without you. The choice is yours.”

The arguments about economic loss to CA if the bill passes are misguided. The status quo seems to be that webcam notarizations with the signer in CA and the notary in VA are lawful under VA law; under VA law these notarizations are considered to have happened in VA. CA recognizes notarizations performed in other states, so apparently would not do anything about these VA remote notarizations. Since they seem to be acceptable under existing law, defeating a bill won’t change this.

Thanks for all the comments. Here are a few more reasons we need to kick out the out of state notaries.

Virginia notaries are not required to undergo any training, exam, or background check and are not required to purchase a bond. Virginia touts itself as a “self-certifying” state.

Texas notaries are not required to undergo any training, exam, or background check. But they do have to purchase a $10k bond payable to the governor.

So now, we have notaries remotely coming into CA from TX and VA performing notarial acts for Californians who haven’t even been trained and tested on their own state’s laws let alone ours.

Basically all that time, work and money that you and I put in to become a notary in CA means bupkis to them. This should be a point of contention for any CA notary based solely on the need for an even playing field. Out of state Notaries performing notarial acts in the state of CA should at least be mandated to carry a bond and be background checked.

What are your thoughts???

-Matt Miller

Thank you for your comment! I really appreciate your feedback.

The economic impact comes straight from the horses mouth. It’s good for our argument, as CA law makers will look at it as lost tax revenue.

And killing this bill will only buy us time, which I realized last year when I busted my butt to kill AB 2368 (last years version of the same bill). But, amending AB199 bill to read: “all notarial acts occurring in the state of CA must be conducted by a California notarial officer, in person, remotely or otherwise.” I think is our best shot at this time according to feedback I’m getting from the senate judiciary committee.

I would point out that Texas does perform random Background checks on Notary applications. While I can speak definitively, I believe the “big” remote notary vendors do assist their notaries in obtaining their NNA certification for signing agent.

Texas requires a significant technical requirement for their remote commissioned notaries. First, it’s a separate commission with the pre-requisite of the standard commission. The technical requirements include audio/video storage, identity checking and credential proofing, and an electronic journal to name a few - and required when you submit your application for remote commission. The cost for your off-the-street, just to apply for the commission is $$$. IMHO - the requirements favor your big vendor firms and not the average notary. Notary dot com did set up an office in Texas and require their notaries to work in their building.

I think any bills need to be written to be less prohibitive to the average notary.

FYI - I also have state training in addition to my nsa training.

California already has an electronic notary law in place that is amicable. This amended version is designed to allow corporate based entities to set up shop remotely in our state from anywhere in US thru a website the NNA will profit from.

Every notary in US should be against the NNA for throwing notaries under the bus. Every notary needs to return to state based notary associations due to the NNA failing to protect our industry’s best interests.

The NNA has often posed as a government entity that has power over the industry. I wouldn’t doubt bribery’s involved in getting profitable laws to go through. They take advantage of our lawful profession that isn’t rebellious but obedient in nature to herd its cattle across states for cash. They act like a charity as if they work for us and that’s a damnable lie. They abuse the title of organization to the max.

The NNA is out for their own greedy interests like wolves in sheeps clothing. They are for profit throwing notaries under the bus. They will do anything necessary to get to the greenback. Their $69 membership per year for millions across the nation isn’t enough for these horrible people who act like the Salvation Army desperate for our donations to help others.

I noted the NNA push for three year memberships big time. Won’t allow a one year membership w/o a fight over the phone! They harass big time for E&O as well. They’ve got their wicked greedy little pig snouts in all realms of money sources and nothing is ever enough to quench their need for more. More! More! Until every notary in CA is broke and sucked dry. Parasitic!

There it is! Hire part-timers, no benefits, pay for their commission, stick 'em in a cubicle and, as their employER, tell them how they MUST do the job OR “Hello, Linda Green.” (The poor notary whose stamp was used by dozens of people stamping away.)

Matt don’t even think about equipping out of state notaries to do anything in our state. Don’t even go there. It’s just plain wrong like allowing demons to come in and take our work over from their desks tampering in our communities It’s unthinkable.

Here’s more. Another rant on NNA the Judas Iscariot traitor among notary associations.

I noted they push for three year memberships big time. Won’t allow a one year membership w/o a fight. They harass big time for E&O as well.

The National Notary Association has its wicked greedy little pig snout in all realms of money sources and nothing is ever enough to quench its need for more. More! More! Until every notary in CA is broke and sucked dry. Parasitic, they are an arm of the government that likely bribes officials to do destructive things to our industry for its own lazy despicable interests!

1 Like

Cheryl, out of state notaries performing remote notarial acts in this state is already happening, right now. This is exactly what I am trying to stop. I’m not sure how else to explain my position. Amending ab199 bill in the way I suggest, would kick out, out of state notaries that are already performing notarial acts in California.

Matt this cant be true they aren’t doing video conferencing yet. There is no video meet ups. Has to be present. This new bill allows non present notarization thru video conferencing corporations will oversee @ $25 per notarization not offered yet.

VA law considers notarizations done by VA enotaries to have occurred in VA, no matter where the signer is. Thus, the laws in CA saying that notarizations have to be in person don’t apply (if you believe the Commonwealth of Virginia). We won’t know for sure if VA is right about this until there is a court case about a signer in CA and an enotary in VA, and one of the parties in the lawsuit claims the notarization is invalid because the signer was in CA and there was no CA notary present. Until such a lawsuit gets into the courts and is decided, we won’t be sure.

1 Like

Cheryl, notarize.com, notarycam.com and safedocs.com are all performing notarial acts in all states and have been doing so since 2012. My bill amendment would kick out these out of state notaries if adopted.