Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lawdog
You're right, I can't produce a contract under seal. Not from any kind of court, admiralty or otherwise.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rule 5.902 Iowa Rules of Court
Rule 5.902 Self–authentication . Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state[, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.
June 2002
(2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in rule 5.902 (1), having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.
|
Isn't that odd. Court rules require a public document to be sealed in one manner or another to be self-authenticated. Yet the court itself seems reluctant to give you its' conclusion under seal which means that its' own orders are not self-authenticated and therefore not valid. It takes more than a signature.
Smoke and mirrors, folks. Don't pay any attention to that little lawdog wagging its' tail while it is peeing on your leg.