The Library of Congress THOMAS
Bill Summary & Status
111th Congress (2009 – 2010)
H.R.3808
Major Congressional Actions
H.R. 3808 Title: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010
Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] (introduced 10/14/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 9/30/2010 Presented to President (who killed the bill)
MAJOR ACTIONS
| 10/14/2009 | Introduced in House |
| 4/27/2010 | Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. |
| 9/27/2010 | Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. |
| 9/27/2010 | Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. |
| 9/27/2010 | Cleared for White House. |
| 9/30/2010 | Presented to President. (President Obama refuses to sign the bill It dies…for now.) |
From: govtrack.us a civic project to track Congress
H.R.3808
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.
Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term ‘electronic record’ has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is ‘logically associated with’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Michael Collins 
The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 HR 3808 was sponsored by Rep. Robert Anderholt, R of Alabama with three co-sponsors. These were Bruce Braley, D of Iowa, Michael Castle R of Delaware and Artur Davis D of Alabama. It was passed unanimously in the House and by unrecorded voice vote in the Senate.
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant. This means one mouse click could have foreclosed on every property in the country by the first comer.
At the least, this law would have allowed havoc including random foreclosure even on properties which had no mortgage with the property owner left with no way to do anything about it. There would have been a long planned swift takeover of the country by the moneyed interests. Forget the 13th Amendment.
I’m not used to getting replies here since I use this blog to prepare html for sites where I normally publish but I’m glad I looked in. Your reply is absolutely fascinating. I need a little help with elaboration on this and would greatly appreciate it. I’ll go back and read the bill again. What I think your saying makes sense, I’m just not sensible enough to grasp it. Thanks so much!
Yes, I’d like to see elaboration on that possibility, too…