You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: You're gonna get mad, but the affidavit is NOT in the proper form. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
read the law first Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. You're gonna get mad, but the affidavit is NOT in the proper form.
You're going to get really mad and I'm hesitant to post but I am an attorney (18 years, AV rated) and I deal with affidavits many, many times a day.

The Puke Judge did not say the notary wasn't a notary. What he said was that the FORM of the affidavit did not meet the criteria of an affidavit. First, there is no statement that the witness was placed under oath prior to signing the affidavit. My affidavits start out, "Comes now before the undersigned officer duly authorized to administer oaths, xxxxxx xxxxxxx, who after being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows...." This meets the standard that the Puke is talking about. There is nothing in the "affidavit" that says that the deponent (or the affiant if you will) was placed under oath. Once, I had an affidavit thrown out on a summary judgment motion because the notary didn't have the Affiant raise his hand in order to swear the oath.

Every single one of my affidavits contains a signature block for the notary public that says "Sworn to and subscribed before me this ____ day of ________, _______" thus establishing that the notary was a SUBSCRIBING witness (i.e. one that saw the witness sign the document or one before whom the witness ratified the signature).

It's the FORM that the evil, lying, sack of crap Puke was blasting but like a broken clock is right twice a day, the Puke, unfortunately, was right on that "affidavit." It's not an affidavit. Now, many times I will have a notary attest to a written statement to establish that something was done or noted on a particular day (for example, x employee was given this notice on this day and then the notary signs it) It doesn't establish the truth or falsity of the contents of the written statement but it does establish that it was written on that particular day.

I'm sorry but some sadomasochistic urge that I can not resist compels me to correct the record and then take my beating (that will most certainly ensue) like a mensch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC