In context I believe the "jurat" is a statement subjecting the "affiant" to penalties of perjury?
Is that a jurat?
Quote:
|
David, do you have an example of an asseveration? Are they done like an affidavit without a jurat?
|
Insead a positive assertion that
My signature attests to these stated facts as being true...
...which when you think about it, it superfluous.
So many times a suitor will give me an affidavit or whatever signed by the defendant. It may be full of very true facts about the IRC etc... The trouble is that the one talking is the one signing. One cannot speak for somebody else - hearsay.
What I was getting after with the asseveration here is that testimony get on the record from Child Services, the hospital, the delivering Dr. and nurses on shift etc. That is the record. Mom cannot say what they say and expect it to find exceptions to the hearsay rule.
She was to tender the asseveration with all information she believes to be on a Birth Certificate, to the people holding the child. In turn, they would have to release the child or explain why the asseveration would not function in lieu of the formal Birth Certificate. - They would have to point out the functional differences between the facts asseverated and published at the county clerk and recorder, and what the Birth Certificate does.
What is the difference? Is there an admission that the child is or will be hypothecated upon between now and contracting age - his or her first job?
Get that admission on the record. It does no good to say it for "them" regardless of how much evidence you can provide - which is shaky at best anyway.
The objective would be something along the lines of convincing a grand jury or a jury in a civil matter that Mom was injured and the baby kidnapped, even after all the information about the Birth Certificate was volunteered already published.
In other words the asseveration is not important. The testimony it brings forth is important.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Now we have the appearance of Dad. So maybe Mom's signature is not so important now. As I understood things, Mom agreed to one of two things they wanted and they used that for admission she was guilty about the second. That is such a misconstruction of consent but sadly so typical, that attorneys would have you accept it as normal.
The world is far from perfect but Mom should have simply stood her ground that she need not do or consent to any kind of gauntlet or testing whatsoever to be the rightful Mom of the baby. By consenting to one thing, she consented to everything that Child Services can think of...