Life As A Remote Notary
The NNA conference PDF identifies Dushunna F. Scott of Lady Scott Enterprises as presenter and uses Notarize as a RON example. It lists USPS Form 1583 and DS-3053 as common documents.
Open NNA PDFProtect your commission
Training, platforms, and mentors are not the final authority.
Notary training can be useful, but the notary still needs the statute, official state source, platform record, journal rule, and document facts. This page explains how to source-check RON and platform guidance without turning it into a personal fight.
For notaries
This is about source quality, not blaming one presenter.
I do not have anything personal against Dushunna Scott or any individual presenter. The issue is larger: NNA-branded training gave professional credibility to practical RON guidance at scale, and notaries reasonably treated that training as best practice because it came through NNA.
That matters because notaries are the people left holding the commission risk when a training slide, platform script, mentor answer, or trade-group summary turns out not to map cleanly to state law.
What this page is for
Use it when a trainer, platform, signing service, agency, or online discussion says something is allowed, but you need to know what source actually controls.
Why this matters
NNA helped teach a platform-first RON model when many notaries were learning RON.
The 2019 NNA conference PDF and related NNA 2020 video present RON as a practical workflow built around secure platforms, audio-video sessions, electronic identity verification, company policy, NNA certification/background checks, digital certificates, digital seals, and common platform documents.
Recorded conference training
The related NNA video discusses RON platform choice, Notarize independent-contractor work, platform policies, ID handling, journals, recordings, and common documents during the COVID-era RON surge.
Open videoThe problem is institutional.
The point is not that a presenter told notaries to ignore law. The point is that NNA platformed practical guidance at scale, and that can make platform habit feel like legal authority unless notaries check the source.
Virginia example
I made the same assumption before checking the statute closely.
For Virginia RON, I initially assumed ordinary selfie/liveness biometrics were allowed because the industry treated that idea as settled. Later, while researching a different issue, I dug into the Virginia statutory language and realized the common explanation did not map cleanly to the law.
That experience is why I do not treat repeated industry confidence as authority. If the answer is about a notarial act, the source has to be the statute, rule, official state material, transaction record, and retained evidence, not just a platform name or training slide.
Source checklist
Before relying on a training or platform answer, ask these questions.
What state law controls this act?
Name the state, transaction date, notary type, identity method, certificate wording, journal rule, recording rule, and document type.
Is this law, platform policy, or personal practice?
Company policy can be stricter than law, but it cannot create legal authority that the statute does not provide.
What record proves the identity method?
For RON, do not stop at "the platform verified identity." Ask which statutory identity method was used and what audit record, journal entry, certificate, credential analysis, KBA, witness, or other evidence proves it.
Did the training drift into another role?
Be careful when notary guidance turns into private investigation, background-checking customers, security posture, recipient legal advice, immigration advice, or platform compliance claims.
Can you explain it without naming a brand?
If the answer only works when you say NNA, Notarize, NotaryCam, SIGNiX, Pavaso, DocVerify, or another platform name, the legal analysis is probably incomplete.
Would this answer hold up after a challenge?
Imagine a signer, recipient, court, agency, employer, title company, or investigator asks why the act was valid. The answer should point to law and records, not just training confidence.
NNA source boundary
NNA can be historical evidence, but it is not the authority.
NNA material can show what notaries were taught and what the industry believed. That is useful. But it should not be the anchor source for legal or process claims when statutes, official state guidance, court records, platform records, and transaction evidence are available.
That is especially important for RON identity proofing, Virginia biometric claims, KBA/public-record questions, platform approved-list claims, and customer safety/compliance advice.