L.R. Brown v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Leonard R. Brown, Petitioner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs,1 Respondent BEFORE: : : : : No. 2159 C.D. 2010 : Submitted: February 18, 2011 : : : HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge OPINION BY JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: March 17, 2011 Leonard R. Brown (Petitioner) appeals pro se from the determination of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation (Department) suspending his notary license for six months followed by a six-month period of probation, requiring him to attend six hours of notary education, ordering him to pay a civil penalty of $500, and requiring him to submit monthly copies of his register to the Department for failing to properly verify the signatures of two people engaged in a scheme to fraudulently convey property. For the following reasons, we reverse. 1 The correct name for the Respondent is Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation. On July 16, 2007, a man Petitioner knew vaguely from the neighborhood as Angel came to Petitioner with a couple, who appeared to be in their early seventies and who Petitioner did not know, to notarize their signatures on a deed for property they were conveying to C. Hernandez, who apparently was Angel. Petitioner asked the couple if they had photo identification, but they responded that neither of them had a driver s license because they were too old. Instead, they each produced a Medicare card, one bearing the name and signature of Kenneth Walker and the other bearing the name and signature of Josephine Walker. Medicare cards, besides bearing the beneficiary s name and signature, also contain the beneficiary s gender, the type of plan entitlement, an effective date and a claim number, but no expiration date. Relying on the Medicare cards and the fact that Angel vouched for them, Petitioner notarized the Walkers signatures. It turned out that Kenneth Walker died in 1993, and Josephine Walker died in 1990, and the couple purporting to be them somehow obtained their Medicare cards and then forged their signatures on the deed. Angel or C. Hernandez turned out to be Carlos Quiles, who was involved in a scheme to fraudulently transfer dozens of properties. While he had no knowledge of the scheme, the Department issued an order to Petitioner to show cause why his notary s license should not be revoked. Following a hearing before the Department that elicited the above information, the Department found that Petitioner violated Section 158.1(a) of the Notary Public Law (Law)2 by not identifying the Walkers in accordance with this provision that provides: 2 Act of August 21, 1953, P.L. 1323, added by the Act of December 9, 2002, P.L. 1269, 57 P.S. §158.1(a). 2 The officer notarizing the instrument shall know through personal knowledge or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before the notary is the person described in and who is executing the instrument. . . . [P]ersonal knowledge means having an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual in relation to other people and based upon a chain of circumstances surrounding the individual, which establish the individual s identity, and satisfactory evidence means the reliance on the presentation of a current, government-issued identification card bearing a photograph, signature or physical description and serial or identification number, or the oath or affirmation of a credible witness who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual. (Emphasis added). Because Medicare cards do not contain an expiration date, the Department found that they could not be current identification within the meaning of the Law. It suspended Petitioner s notary license for six months, followed by six months of probation, fined him $500, required him to attend six hours of notary education classes, and ordered him to submit monthly copies of his notary register. Petitioner then filed this appeal3 contending that he complied with the Law because he did all that was necessary to validate the Walkers identification by examining the Medicare cards and validating their signatures with the signature on the cards. Section 158.1(a) contains three ways for a notary to validate a person s identification. First, he may know them personally. Second, he may rely on a 3 Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Gombach v. Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, 692 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 3 current, government-issued identification card bearing a photograph, signature or physical description and a serial or identification number. Finally, he may rely on the oath or affirmation of a credible witness known to both the notary and the individual whose identity needs verification. Here, Petitioner did not know the Walkers so the first means of identification could not have been met. As for the third means, he barely knew Angel, as he was unaware of his real name or even of his alias of C. Hernandez. In addition, Angel, as the grantee on the deed, had a financial stake in the transaction and could not have been a credible witness even if Petitioner had known him better. Therefore, the only way for him to verify the Walkers signatures was through the second method. The Medicare cards clearly were government-issued and bore a signature and identification number, but the Department contends that because they had an effective date but no expiration date, they could not have been current. On the other hand, Petitioner contends that as long as there is no expiration date, they are current. Ambiguities should and will be construed against the government. This principle has its foundation in the rule of lenity that provides that any ambiguity in a criminal statute will be construed in favor of the defendant. The rule of lenity requires a clear and unequivocal warning in language that people generally would understand, as to what actions would expose them to liability for penalties and what the penalties would be. Commonwealth v. Reaser, 851 A.2d 144, 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cluck, 381 A.2d 472, 477 (Pa. Super. 1977)). Consistent with the rule of lenity, the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. §1928, requires that every penal provision, whether in a civil or criminal statute, be construed strictly. 4 The Law does not contain a definition of current so we must construe it according to its common and approved usage. 1 Pa. C.S. §1903. According to Webster s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1989), p. 316, current means presently elapsing; occurring in or existing at the present time; most recent. Applied to a government-issued identification card, this could mean that a card that does not have an expiration date is not current because there is no way to make that determination. On the other hand, it could just mean that a card has to have an effective date to be current. Because ambiguities in a statute have to be read against the government absent an interpretive regulation, we must reverse the Department s determination. ______________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE 5 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Leonard R. Brown, Petitioner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs,4 Respondent : : : : No. 2159 C.D. 2010 : : : : ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2011, the order of the Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, dated August 16, 2010, is reversed. ______________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE 4 The correct name for the Respondent is Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
