RE: [legalxml-enotary] Re: Draft minutes of the First Meeting

I have asked others in my office (Superior Court Clerk) of
any processes involving notarizations that are evident in court filings,
particularly instances where our business process depends on there being a
notarization. The answer was that in processing Satisfactions of Judgment we
must see a notarization statement and stamp and, technically at least, the
language used is to include an acknowledgement. If the notarization is absent,
the document is rejected and returned to the filer with a $15 fee assessed. That
indicates that the Clerk's business process depends on the notarization
of the Satisfaction of Judgment and that a Judgment cannot be satisfied without
it.

 

(The fee is what is called the "Faulty Document Fee,"
assessed by the Clerk in instances where an error made it impossible for the Clerk
to process the matter and the error was not something the Clerk could correct,
such as a number transposition error in the case number. The rationale for the
fee was that it would be of educational and corrective value for the filer and
that it would pay, at least in part, for the costs incurred in detecting and
dealing with the fee. It's not a huge money maker, but it is a helpful
tool.)

 

It is interesting to note that this might be one of just a
few processes involving notarization as a required element in a court filing.
While litigants file many documents that may have been notarized, the presence or
absence of the notarization is not necessarily an issue in the document and
case management processes. 

 

One person said she believes that in previous years it was
common for any sort of Declaration to be notarized, but that has largely been
supplanted by the practice of inserting language to the effect of, "Signed
under penalty of perjury...".

 

I have asked for examples of Satisfaction of Judgment
documents from our imaged cases and when I have those I'll forward PDF
format copies to show what they look like.

 

I hope this is helpful as one of the needed "scenarios."

Regards,

 

Roger

 

Roger
Winters

Electronic Court Records Manager

King County

Department of Judicial Administration

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906



 

-----Original Message-----

From: John Messing
[mailto:] 

Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002
7:55 PM

To:


Subject: [legalxml-enotary] Re:
Draft minutes of the First Meeting

 

Our
draft minutes state:

Unanimous
consensus emerged for the rapid development of several illustrative narrative
scenarios dealing with authentication 

needs
for further discussion, which could include evidentiary considerations, though
it was agreed that the work of the TC 

was
much broader than just evidentiary rules for electronic documents in court
cases.

 

Pieter,
RAM, Rolly, Roger, Dr. Leff, Dan, John agreed to begin a discussion on the list
of various scenarios to which the TC 

could
contribute as a committee of the whole.

 

...

 

The
next telephonic meeting will be held on Oct. 17 @ 1 PM EDT.

 

I am
afraid I have been remiss in this exercise, and I see that I am not alone.
Could we make a concerted effort in the next few days to generate five such
illustrative scenarios. They need not be from lawyers or technically accurate,
just illustrative of a potential direction for the group. I will generate two
by day after tomorrow.

 

I
have been informed by VeriSign that a separate TC will be formed for CALEA
issues, so that discussion now appears to be moot as far as this group is
concerned, unless someone has an opinion to the contrary.

 

Thanks
and best regards to all.