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

roger.winters@metrokc.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:55 PM
To: legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org
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.

legalxml-enotary message