passport?

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Isnt a notary an officer of the court?

A notary is an officer of the state with judicial powers.

What does a notary stamp impart onto said homemade identification documents?
A notary is a witness. Whatever the notary witnesses, the notary can certify.

Thom

To make a notarized document public, one can record it at the county level or publish it in a newspaper for one month.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, a notary is not an officer of the court. Notaries appear to be a public office under the executive branch.
And the only thing a notary does is identify the person signing something, he doesn't guarantee the truth of the contents. And, no, something notarized is not automatically a public document.

That post is mixed with truth and falsehood. You are posting statements that are misleading.

AWAY FROM HERE WITH YOUR ANTI SUI JURIS POSTS!

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Step one is to take state ID sown to notary and have him witness that you are the one signing your new id and stamp it. At this point the state notary will put in the log that you identified yourself by way of state ID. Fine.

Then take the ID that the notary stamped ID and take it back to the notary.

Now he will stamp that id and place in his log that you either identified yourself by notary stamped identification or will put it down as "personally known to me."

Your identification in California needs certain things to qualify to except one from standard detention to establish identity. It must be serial numbered as well as other things.

In addition to the above, one may consider including a jurat on the backside of the ID:

I {solemnly swear or affirm} that the statements in this document are true, (so help me God).

Then, have the notary execute the jurat.

In executing a jurat, administer an oath or affirmation to the affiant and determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence, that the affiant is the person named in the document. The affiant shall sign the document in the presence of the notarial officer. The notarial officer shall administer the oath or affirmation required pursuant to this paragraph in substantially the following form:

According to State law, by including the above on the backside of the ID/document, you have established an affidavit which is acceptable for use in State court.

[protrust]

No problem TomPaine....email me at protrust3@netzero.net or call me at 1-866-208-4371 normal biz hrs.

[palani]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

But understand that an apostille from the Secretary of State is nothing more than assurance that the notary is a current notary and followed proper notary procedure according to state law.

The apostille makes the document valid in other countries for the pitance paid of $5 per country. It does this under the auspices of the Hague Convention of 1963. I suppose if one were to travel through 20 or more countries in one trip the cost would add up quickly. In addition there would most undoubtably be the necessity of clearing your travel documents with the countries visited ahead of time and applying for visa's.

As to what constitutes a public document and to rebut Bernie, here is what the UN says

The Convention applies to public documents which have been executed in the territory of one contracting state and which have to be produced in the territory of another contracting state. For the purposes of the Convention, the following are deemed to be public documents:

a) documents emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from a public prosecutor, a clerk of a court or a process-server (``huissier de justice''),
b) administrative documents,
c) notarial acts,
d) official certifications which are placed on documents signed by persons in their private capacity, such as official certificates recording the registration of a document or the fact that it was in existence on a certain date and official and notarial authentications of signatures.

I would guess that, if an apostille can be produced for a document, that would be pretty good evidence in itself that the document is a public document. I don't think the State Department of a state would lie about something as serious as this.

And here is what the UN says about the apostille itself

Prerequisites of such certificate (``Apostille'') are explicitly stipulated by the Convention. It may be drawn up in the official language of the authority which issues it. The pre-print of the certificate may be in a second language as well. The title ``Apostille (Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961)'' must be in the French language.

When the certificate is properly filled in, it will certify the authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the person signing the document has acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which the document bears.

Since the notary is a public officer (most probably under the executive branch) I generally place the term "FOREIGN AGENT" under the signature line for the notary. This sometimes causes them to blink rapidly before executing but they never seem to want to refuse.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by palani

The apostille makes the document valid in other countries for the pitance paid of $5 per country. It does this under the auspices of the Hague Convention of 1963. I suppose if one were to travel through 20 or more countries in one trip the cost would add up quickly. In addition there would most undoubtably be the necessity of clearing your travel documents with the countries visited ahead of time and applying for visa's.

As to what constitutes a public document and to rebut Bernie, here is what the UN says


I would guess that, if an apostille can be produced for a document, that would be pretty good evidence in itself that the document is a public document. I don't think the State Department of a state would lie about something as serious as this.

And here is what the UN says about the apostille itself


Since the notary is a public officer (most probably under the executive branch) I generally place the term "FOREIGN AGENT" under the signature line for the notary. This sometimes causes them to blink rapidly before executing but they never seem to want to refuse.

Impressive. Thank you!

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by mikah2k

I'm putting up the attachment.

Fulltitle, check the attachment to see what you are saying.

From what I read, passports are not required to enter the United States, and homemade docs are sufficiently legitimate for id during travel in United States.

Without Prejudice.
I hadnt' read the case for over a year. My computer crashed before I could correct the error. Indeed, the case was about Robert Fox being arrested for forgery. The point was the case was about him being acused of that forging or counterfeitting a passport of a country part of the United Nations might have been against the U.S. code. You cannot forge or counterfeit your own documents--you simply make them.

Memory came to mind of reports from some Christians using similar travel documents and found that when they traveled to a particular Spanish speaking Country, they had no resistance from border guards who saw Christian references in the passport document. However, U.S. border guards would sneer and adamantly refuse to acknowledge any value to the travel document.

Also, the Apostille Convention from what I recall was mainly brought about by an international association of notaries. It has to do with ancient Hague Conventions which technically predates the United Nations (1899 was the year of the first Hague Conventions). Also, the Apostille is about diplomatic legalisation it is not a mere notarization. Typically legalisation required one to go through diplomatic channels to get a document notarized in a foreign country. If you had a document notarized in Germany and you wanted it equally notarized in Australia you put the document through diplomatic channels. The Apostille Convention provide a means to streamline legalisation without the traditional legalisation.

Truth is the Apostilled document is treated as thought it were notarized in each Apostille Country. For non-Apostille Countries, there is traditional legalisation. To knowledge, the Apostille Convention doesnt really have much to do with the United Nations. However, teh World Passport Authority is perhaps issued in compliance with the ICAO (Chicago Convention) which may very well be a United Nations entity.

Also consider that Canadian provinces which do not have Apostille, offer authentication or traditional authentication or legalisation through diplomatic channels.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
I hadnt' read the case for over a year. My computer crashed before I could correct the error. Indeed, the case was about Robert Fox being arrested for forgery. The point was the case was about him being acused of that forging or counterfeitting a passport of a country part of the United Nations might have been against the U.S. code. You cannot forge or counterfeit your own documents--you simply make them.

Indeed there is a huge difference between forgery and counterfeiting.

The attached POMC is perfectly legal tender of the exact same specie as FRNs - redeemable in lawful money. The prosecution failed because the DA had no oath of office with the secretary of state, but the charge was forgery, based on the size and shape of the POMC itself. Look at it. It looks too much like a check.

The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion have admittedly been declared a forgery. What that means is there is an original document out there that was altered in minor ways, accusing the "Jews" instead of their puppeteers the Khazarian Elite (Thirteenth Tribe of Arthur Koestler).

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...anielBooks.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Scythian.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Khazar.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Indeed there is a huge difference between forgery and counterfeiting.

The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion have admittedly been declared a forgery. What that means is there is an original document out there that was altered in minor ways, accusing the "Jews" instead of their puppeteers the Khazarian Elite (Thirteenth Tribe of Arthur Koestler).

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...anielBooks.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Scythian.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Khazar.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

Did you see my post about this at GIM? I said the exact same thing, only for the troll brigade to try and make out like I have a poor command of English.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Did you see my post about this at GIM? I said the exact same thing, only for the troll brigade to try and make out like I have a poor command of English.

No. I missed that but you are welcome to link us there.

The Protocols are a very touchy nerve indeed. A fabrication and a spoof are two very different animals indeed. The Jews themselves calling the Protocols a forgery - especially the Jews if I may say being eloquent attorneys more than most, is quite the Tell.


Regards,

David Merrill.