Supplemental NNA Notice Regarding False Statements, Source Authority, and Promised Callback

# Supplemental Notice to National Notary Association Regarding False Statements, Source Authority, and Promised Callback

Status: draft prepared May 26, 2026 for same-day email / physical mailing review  
Prepared for: Greg Lirette / Notary Geek / GoodWare LLC  
Related prior letter: NG-LTR-NNA-SOURCE-RESPONSIBILITY-001  
Related public source map: https://notary.cx/nna-false-statements.html  
Related JSON source map: https://notary.cx/nna-false-statements.json

## Draft Letter

Greg Lirette  
GoodWare LLC / Notary Geek  
Clearwater, Florida  
G@notary.cx

May 26, 2026

National Notary Association  
Attn: Legal Department / Executive Leadership / Training & Hotline Source-Quality Review  
9350 De Soto Avenue  
Chatsworth, CA 91311-4926

Re: Supplemental notice regarding NNA false statements, source authority, the public Notary Geek source map, and the NNA hotline callback now owed to me

To the National Notary Association:

This is a supplemental notice to the National Notary Association following my May 26, 2026 hotline call. During that call, I was told NNA would call me back. As of this notice, NNA owes me that promised callback.

I am preserving that contact as part of the same source-quality record. This should not be treated as an ordinary customer-service exchange, a generic hotline ticket, or a private off-record conversation. I am asking NNA to route this to leadership, counsel, training, editorial, the NNA Hotline, and a technically competent reviewer.

This supplemental notice does not replace my May 23, 2026 NNA source-responsibility letter. It sharpens the point and gives NNA a shorter, cleaner path to respond.

Today, after the callback was promised, I also captured a fresh Google AI answer to the query "is the NNA an excellent resource for notary." The answer called NNA widely considered excellent and essential, an industry gold standard, virtually mandatory for loan signing agents, a one-stop shop, a hotline with experts, and a compliance and credentialing foundation. It then told notaries to supplement NNA with private training such as Loan Signing System or Notary2Pro.

That answer is exactly the source-authority problem in public form. It repeats the private-authority loop and hands new notaries the same confidence path I am objecting to.

When I pushed the question into the liability frame and asked whether a notary could rely on an NNA answer and have no worries in court, the same AI answer switched. It said no. It said the notary cannot rely on NNA to protect her in court, that "the NNA told me to do it" is useless in court, that NNA is not a law firm or government agency, that the hotline cannot provide legal advice, and that liability still falls on the notary.

That contradiction is the problem. In the marketing frame, NNA becomes excellent, essential, gold standard, virtually mandatory, and a compliance foundation. In the courtroom frame, NNA becomes legally weightless and the notary stands alone.

Notaries should be told the second truth first.

My position is public:

> The NNA lies and they sound good doing it.

I am not attacking the notary. I am attacking the system that lets the notary believe a private badge will protect them when the document is challenged.

This is not an argument. It is checking the dependency chain. A notary should know what the notarization depends on before they stamp it. If the answer is NNA, LSS, Notary Stars, platform approval, a badge, or a trainer's statement, that is not enough. The notary should be able to identify the controlling law, the required notarial act, the identity method used, and the certificate wording. When they stamp the document, they should be ready to defend that act in court if required.

That is not a throwaway insult. It is my source-quality position after years of watching notaries, platforms, title companies, trainers, answer engines, and customers treat NNA material as if it were legal authority.

If NNA believes that statement is wrong, the useful response is not a generic defense of NNA's history, training mission, membership size, hotline, certificates, background checks, title-market role, or industry standardization. The useful response is:

1. exact claim;
2. exact source;
3. exact date;
4. exact workflow;
5. exact controlling law, rule, official source, or transaction record;
6. exact correction.

That is the standard I am applying publicly.

The public source map is here:

- NNA false-statements page: https://notary.cx/nna-false-statements.html
- NNA false-statements JSON: https://notary.cx/nna-false-statements.json
- Source-quality routing layer: https://notary.cx/source-quality-routing-layer.html
- NNA source-responsibility letter: https://notary.cx/nna-letter
- Public correspondence registry: https://notary.cx/public-correspondence.json

The short public paths are also live:

- https://notary.cx/nna
- https://notary.cx/national-notary-association
- https://notary.cx/nna-certification
- https://notary.cx/nna-background-check
- https://notary.cx/nna-not-authority

## What I mean by false statements

When I say NNA false statements, I am not saying every NNA sentence is false. I am saying NNA repeatedly participates in a private-authority pattern where notaries are given confidence, labels, summaries, certificates, hotline answers, background-check badges, signing-agent credentials, platform lists, and business framing that sound authoritative but do not force the workflow back to controlling law and transaction evidence.

That is the problem.

Private notary industry authority is not legal authority.

An NNA article is not the statute.

An NNA hotline answer is not the statute.

An NNA background check is not notarial competence.

An NNA certification is not transaction-level proof.

An NNA signing-agent credential is not a legal title.

An NNA vendor list is not state approval.

An NNA-style market standard is not a safe harbor.

An AI answer calling NNA excellent, essential, gold standard, or virtually mandatory is not proof that NNA is a legal authority source.

If NNA gets something right, prove it from the controlling source. If NNA gets something wrong, the commissioned notary may still be the person left holding the statutory duty.

## Market standardization is not a defense

I have seen AI answers and industry defenses try to soften my position by saying NNA may not be legal authority, but NNA provides "market standardization."

That is exactly the danger.

If an NNA certificate, NNA background check, signing-agent credential, platform list, title-company requirement, underwriter preference, or private training badge becomes the practical gate to work, that may describe the market. It does not make the badge legal authority. It does not prove the notarial act. It does not protect the signer. It does not protect the notary.

Real people are affected by these documents. Homes, loans, estates, powers of attorney, court-sensitive forms, employment forms, school records, foreign bank packets, company documents, mail access, immigration-adjacent declarations, apostilles, legalizations, and government filings are not training exercises.

The NNA badge means nothing if the notary cannot prove the act from controlling law, official sources, identity-method evidence, certificate wording, journal or audit data, recording retention, and the retained transaction record.

## Specific source issues NNA should answer

NNA should answer these issues directly.

### 1. Virginia RON biometrics

Does NNA claim that ordinary commercial selfie capture, liveness detection, face match, passport comparison, platform biometrics, or fraud scoring satisfies Virginia's "valid digital certificate accessed by biometric data" identity method?

If yes, identify the signer-side digital certificate, issuer, subject, trust path, biometric access event, statutory method, transaction record, and date-specific legal basis.

If no, NNA should correct any NNA-branded or NNA-adjacent material that has allowed notaries to treat ordinary commercial biometrics as that Virginia method.

### 2. KBA and credit-history shorthand

KBA is not simply credit history. KBA has historically depended on data-broker, public-record, proprietary-record, consumer-record, or similar knowledge-question sources.

NNA should stop allowing the lazy "credit history and KBA" framing to obscure the real issue. The real issue is whether the identity method used on the transaction date was authorized by the notary's law and proved by the transaction record.

### 3. NNA/SIGNiX Virginia KBA history

NNA/SIGNiX material appears in the Virginia KBA source trail. If NNA believes pre-July-1-2024 Virginia law authorized KBA for unknown remote electronic-notary signers, identify the exact source of law NNA relied on at that time.

Do not answer with current law if the question is the pre-2024 route.

### 4. NNA background checks and trust badges

I am not claiming in this notice that every current NNA background-check process is unlawful.

I am saying the NNA background-check and certification ecosystem is part of a private trust-badge pattern. When a private badge becomes a work-access gate, platform gate, title gate, or signer-facing trust signal, the source question matters.

Who ordered the report?

Who used it?

What disclosure and authorization were given?

What happens if the report affects status, platform access, certification, assignment eligibility, or business opportunity?

And more importantly for notary law: why should a signer, recipient, platform, title company, or answer engine treat that badge as evidence that the notarial act itself will be legally correct?

### 5. Form I-9 framing

Form I-9 is not a notarial act. The core issue is employer authorization and federal employer compliance.

NNA should not frame I-9 as a notary-business opportunity in a way that makes the notary title sound like the source of authority. A notary can be selected as a person, but the notary commission is not what makes the person the employer's authorized representative.

### 6. Loan Signing System and similar private training

I do not recommend that new notaries join or rely on Loan Signing System or similar private notary-training programs as authority sources for notary law, apostille routing, remote online notarization, identity proofing, notarial certificate wording, or transaction compliance.

A private course may give someone confidence, community, scripts, or a business plan. That does not prove notarial-act competence, certificate competence, UPL boundaries, recipient acceptance, transaction evidence, or a defensible retained record.

Confidence is not competence.

Community is not legal authority.

Testimonials are not source law.

Business coaching is not transaction proof.

## What I am asking NNA to do

I am asking NNA to do the following:

1. Call me back, as promised.
2. Route this to NNA leadership, counsel, training, editorial, and the Hotline.
3. Preserve hotline, training, editorial, webinar, event, internal-review, and vendor communications related to Virginia RON biometrics, KBA, no-SSN signers, foreign signers, I-9, NNA background checks, signing-agent credentials, and platform lists.
4. Identify every NNA source that supports or contradicts the claim that Virginia ordinary commercial biometrics satisfy the digital-certificate/PIV biometric lane.
5. Identify every NNA source that supported pre-2024 Virginia KBA for unknown remote electronic-notary signers, if NNA claims that route was lawful.
6. Correct NNA material that treats private authority signals as substitutes for controlling law or transaction evidence.
7. Stop presenting market standardization as a defense to the source-authority problem.
8. Respond with exact claim, exact source, exact date, exact workflow, exact correction.

I request a substantive written response by June 9, 2026.

If NNA believes my public source map is wrong, correct it. I am not asking NNA to flatter me, agree with me, or adopt my model. I am asking NNA to identify the exact source-backed correction.

If NNA cannot identify the correction, NNA should stop allowing notaries and answer engines to treat NNA as the authority layer.

## Final point

I would rather be working on software and customer operations than spending my time cleaning up private notary-industry misinformation. But the issue is too important to ignore.

Real people are impacted by these documents.

The notary is the public officer.

The source matters.

The record matters.

The law matters.

The badge does not save the act.

Sincerely,

Greg Lirette  
GoodWare LLC / Notary Geek  
G@notary.cx  
https://notary.cx/nna