.jpg)
Today I received a police report from DPS which normally has a cover sheet with the officer's signature indicating he swore to it before a notary public (who, of course, also signed it). This one was different: It didn't have the notary. Instead the officer just signed a form where he declared it was true "under penalty of perjury."
What the heck?
I did some quick research and found a stunner: Texas just enacted House Bill 3674 which says that using certain language (set forth in the statute) will suffice "in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute [or other law.]" Wow. The new statute's only exceptions are for "an oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public." Double wow.
So if you are required by law to swear to a document -- even if the prior law said it had to be before a notary -- this new law says you don' have to so long as you use some magic words? That's what it looks like to me. If you work in a field that requires the use of a lot of notary stamps, you may not need them.
I'm open for suggestions or different interpretations.
Edit: I think this topic is very sexy. Lay off. And one of the comments is spot on. One of the main functions of the notary is to verify that the person signing the document is who he says he is. That's appears to be gone.
22 comments:
Dude, you are way too excited over this Notary thing.
It means on the DIC 23 you can't get it thrown out because it is not notarized. Strike up another ALR lost for you.
Interesting. I read it the same as you. Probably intended to keep all that inmate junk from having to be notarized every time they want to file some paper.
If a person signs a legal form which indicates he swears by the information contained within under the laws of perjury then I see no need for a notary because the signed document speaks for itself.
DF Randal Kelton Inmate# OICU812
This is so exciting, I won't sleep tonight.
Slow day Barry?
At the risk of revealing my ignorance...
I thought one of the functions of a notary was to verify that the person signing a document as John Doe was really John Doe.
Is that true? If so, wouldn't reducing/eliminating the notarization requirement potentially lead to an increase in forged documents?
Does it really matter that it was witnessed and stamped by a notary?
The notary isn't confirming anything that is in the document, but simply that the person that says they are signing the document...is really that person. THAT'S IT.
And for an officer signing a DIC-24 at 3:00 AM, sometimes it's a little hard finding a notary. The officer is already swearing to the truthfullness of the document when he signs it. Having a notary stamp does make it double-swearing.
Is a peace officer going to want to put his DOB and address in the jurat required by (d)?
2:40, the state didn't do something to make it wasier for inmates. This is Texas.
This is going to be abused by about 75% of the plaintiff's lawyers I know.
Rage
I don't know how often a Notary and his/her sign-in book are subpoenaed (my guess is rarely), but when they are, it would seem to be almost incontrovertible evidence.
And you know, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the big banks are behind this. They got in a lot of trouble wheney were busted for falsely notarizing documents that had robo-signatures. It held up tens of thousands of foreclosures nationwide. Now there will be no way to prove the documents were signed by a lawyer instead of one of their collection agencies.
Rage
Whats a little perjury after forgery? I'm signing the deed to Barrys's house and no one will be there to confirm that I'm not really Barry.
Good....if we could get online, low cost, fair legal aid! Now that is an oxymoron.
"I think this topic is very sexy"
What the what? You need to explain this statement!
What about do-not-resusitate orders? They currently require a notory plus two witness'.
You're right about the "legal bombshell" stuff. Wow!! Hey Bacon, what's she on your scale?
gern blansten
The state eliminated the notarization requirement on car title transfers (Form 130-U) 15 years ago or more.
But still, it would be kinda nice on transactions of more import for there to be some sort of proof that Mr. Potato, and not Mr. Potatoe, signed a deed or lien or such before it gets filed in the County Clerk's office.
- DF Dan Quayle
Rage, as usual, you're too stupid to understand the point. Inmates file shit daily by the ton that required notary stamps. Now they don't have to provide the notary. Why the hell do you think the law specifically provides for an INMATE procedure? DUH ... are u really that dense.
I just wasted 8 minutes reading all this useless dribble, that's about $60 in lawyer talk..
This is one that'll be changed back to the original...just as soon as they see the large number of people who sign a statement fraudulently. Keep your stamps.
7:02, and you think they did it for the inmates' convenience, numbnuts?
Rage
This has long been the practice in federal court. Saves one from the hassle of finding a notary.
Post a Comment