Work-Related Subpoena

[tranquility]

To subpeona witnesses is a common tactic that is used in lawsuits. I do have some experience in this due to my having been employed at a CPA firm, though in those cases it is the client that pays the CPA(s) the transportation, lodging, and time. and it is rare that the CPA actualy goes to court. It is meant to make things more expensive and force an out of court settlement.
If it is your employer that is being sued and notarizing is something you normaly do for your duties I believe your employer would have to pay you for the time and travel expence (parking, milleage etc). On the other hand why hasn't the lawyer filed an objection for a frivilous motion which is exactly what the subpeona is.

Um....the OP swore in her official duties that a guy was at the signing and signed the form. The guy swears he was not. If he was there and signed or not is material to the case. You think this is frivolous? Perhaps you should look up the word. (My spelling, not yours.)

 

[latigo]

Latigo, OP is not the one on trial here.

Read the following and then tell us that the OP IS NOT ON TRIAL!

"California Civil Code Section 1189

(a) (1) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form: State of California ) County of___________ ) On______________________________________before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared_____________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature________________________________ (Seal)

(2) A notary public who willfully states as true any material fact that he or she knows to be false shall be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000). An action to impose a civil penalty under this subdivision may be brought by the Secretary of State in an administrative proceeding or any public prosecutor in superior court, and shall be enforced as a civil judgment. A public prosecutor shall inform the secretary of any civil penalty imposed under this section. "


(Bold lettering added. The upper case, "PENALTY OF PERJURY" appears here as it does in the Code Section)

 

[bokaba]

To reiterate, I am not the one on trial. Plaintiff and Defendant are getting divorced and the estranged husband denies he signed a signed a power of attorney. I followed all regulations set forth by both the civil code and Secretary of State. The signer appeared in person and presented satisfactory evidence under C.C. 1185 (CA driver's license). and completed then completed an acknowledgment according to 1189(a)(1). I also know both the defendant and the plaintiff and can easily identify the defendant as the one who signed the document. No notarial misconduct here. The defendant just doesn't want to pay his soon to be ex-wife.

 

[tranquility]

To reiterate, I am not the one on trial. Plaintiff and Defendant are getting divorced and the estranged husband denies he signed a signed a power of attorney. I followed all regulations set forth by both the civil code and Secretary of State. The signer appeared in person and presented satisfactory evidence under C.C. 1185 (CA driver's license). and completed then completed an acknowledgment according to 1189(a)(1). I also know both the defendant and the plaintiff and can easily identify the defendant as the one who signed the document. No notarial misconduct here. The defendant just doesn't want to pay his soon to be ex-wife.

They guy is going to call you a liar. The judge will decide if he agrees. If he decides against you, you will suffer consequences. We know you're not on trial in the official sense, but you are on trial in a realistic sense. We know the defendant's motives, but if you think you will just go into court and say what you just said and then wipe your hands on your pants and leave, you are mistaken.

 

[bokaba]

I realize that if the defendant loses the case, he may sue me for damages. I would suppose those that he would have to prove in court at least by preponderance of evidence that some imposter who possessed his driver's license signed the document. I also realize that he may try to shake down my surety bond and insurance policy for a settlement within policy limits.

 

[tranquility]

I realize that if the defendant loses the case, he may sue me for damages. I would suppose those that he would have to prove in court at least by preponderance of evidence that some imposter who possessed his driver's license signed the document. I also realize that he may try to shake down my surety bond and insurance policy for a settlement within policy limits.

Have you ever testified in court before? The attorney who is going to call you a liar (Excuse me, disingenuous.) is going to make you doubt yourself. They will ask about your practices and if you followed them and then try to get you to show you benefit from helping your employer out by not quite following the rules and just letting them slide once in a while. Not only are you disingenuous, but you have motivation to be intentionally so. Heck, the judge should just put you in jail right now so you can't cause any more harm to the public.

Your testimony is material to the case. The other side knows that if you did everything right, they have a much higher burden to try to overcome the presumptions. But, if you admit or even don't deny you did something wrong for your employer, you can hang your employer out on the limb too.

 

[bokaba]

Thanks for taking an interest in my case tranquility. I have been to court before, but never as a witness. I know that defense counsel will attempt to do many of the things you have listed. I am a part time law school student myself, so I hope I know a bit more than the average person here. I will just tell the truth. I followed all required procedures and neither myself nor the employer has any interest in the document other than the $10 for the notary acknowledgment; additionally, the document had nothing to do with either my employer or me. The defendant was going to stipulate he signed the document, but changed his mind.

 

[LdiJ]

Have you ever testified in court before? The attorney who is going to call you a liar (Excuse me, disingenuous.) is going to make you doubt yourself. They will ask about your practices and if you followed them and then try to get you to show you benefit from helping your employer out by not quite following the rules and just letting them slide once in a while. Not only are you disingenuous, but you have motivation to be intentionally so. Heck, the judge should just put you in jail right now so you can't cause any more harm to the public.

Your testimony is material to the case. The other side knows that if you did everything right, they have a much higher burden to try to overcome the presumptions. But, if you admit or even don't deny you did something wrong for your employer, you can hang your employer out on the limb too.

I have to admit Tranq, that as a notary myself I find the entire tone of this thread disturbing. Its as if everyone is stating that a notary who follows the rules still has a 50/50 chance of going to jail if someone they notarized a signature for tries to deny that they were ever there. I would hope that is not what you really meant to imply in this thread.

A notary has the responsibility to make sure that the document in question is signed in front of them, and that the person who signs is either known to them or produces identification to prove that they are who they say they are. If that is not good enough for a judge, then the laws need to change to reflect different standards, although I cannot imagine what those standards might be.

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the person attempting to deny that they were present in front of the notary and did not sign the document. All a notary attests to is that the person whose signature appears on the document is really the person who signed the document. Since there are method to prove or disprove a signature, again, I feel that the entire tone of this thread is misleading.

 

[cbg]

I'm a former notary and I know what Tranq is saying.

The OP goes into court and says yes, the individual was there and signed the papers in front of me. The other individual says, no, I didn't, and the OP is lying. The judge gets to decide who he believes. If he believes the OP, no harm no foul. But if he doesn't, the OP is in trouble. Maybe unfairly in trouble, but in trouble nonetheless.

 

[quincy]

I agree with you, LdiJ. When I first read this thread, I was disturbed by the tone, as well.

While I can appreciate the information that latigo and tranquility provided in their posts, if bokaba tells the truth in court (and the truth is as she states), it is highly highly unlikely she will face the dire consequences of which she was warned several times in this thread.

Thank goodness she appears to have a solid head on her shoulders.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm a former notary and I know what Tranq is saying.

The OP goes into court and says yes, the individual was there and signed the papers in front of me. The other individual says, no, I didn't, and the OP is lying. The judge gets to decide who he believes. If he believes the OP, no harm no foul. But if he doesn't, the OP is in trouble. Maybe unfairly in trouble, but in trouble nonetheless.

And once again, I will repeat...all a notary does is attest to the fact that the signature is valid. Since there are tried and true methods to determine if a signature is valid, I disagree with the tone of this thread.

 

[cbg]

I think, myself, that it's unlikely that any of the dire possibilities being warned of are likely to happen, but I can't deny that if the judge believes the other guy and not our poster, there are potential problems. And yes, I'm quite aware of what a notary does, having held a notary's license for six years.

 

[You Are Guilty]

So let's say the defendant, realizing its cheaper to pay a handwriting expert $3k than it is to pay his ex wife $20k, shows up in court and testifies "I never signed that document". He then puts on handwriting expert who testifies "Yep, I have 50 years of experience in authenticating signatures and that's not the Defendant's". Then our OP gets up and says, "I am just here to tell the truth. Defendant signed it in front of me, after I looked at his driver's license, and the only reason he's saying he didn't sign now is to get out of paying his ex-wife. I, on the other hand, only care about my $10".

Is the court going to simply disregard a vetted expert and the party? It might. But the judge might also think, "Boy, it sure seems like in every forged notary case I have, the notary says he checked the license and just wants his $2. Something sure seems fishy here." Result - trouble for the OP.

Point being, "just telling the truth" is great and all, but not 100% effective in a trial situation. So to complain about the "tone of the answers" pointing out a small, but extraordinarily serious outcome is possible is uncalled for. Just look at all the criminal law threads where people are told they "could go to jail" for stealing a $10 item. I don't see any of you making the same arguments there, and I don't see a lot of people in prison for shoplifting a DVD!


NB: Being a law student is arguably even worse than being a layperson in court. The false sense of knowledge instilled by school can be a very dangerous thing. Law school prepares you to "think like" a lawyer; its purpose is not to prepare you to give courtroom testimony.

 

[quincy]

I understand what you are saying, YAG, just as I understood what both latigo and tranquility were saying with their posts. And the advice to bokaba to speak with an attorney prior to testifying as a witness in the divorce action was wise advice.

However, it is one thing to point out the risks a person may face when testifying, and it is quite another to "!!!!" and bold print the penalties for perjury with the clear implication that bokaba as a notary does not and did not know her responsibilities as a notary or the laws that govern these responsibilities. Especially when her question to the forum was not even about possible misconduct as a notary.

The change in the perjury penalty in the California law went into effect in 2008. It is not something that has been newly sprung on notaries in the state. Those who deal in real estate matters are, perhaps, even more aware of these changes in the law than others as it was largely due to problems with real estate transactions that led to this change.

The bottom line for me is that it was not the information that was imparted in this thread but rather the way it was imparted that I took and take issue with. And I take issue with it in other threads, as well (although I am sure someone will dig out threads in copyright or defamation where I have emphasized the severest of the penalties unrealistically ).

NB: Point taken.

 

[tranquility]

I agree that just a guy doing his job and following the rules has little to worry about, no matter if it is the signature of the purported person or not. But, I also know some who take some liberties because there is a rush or the guy is gone or whatever reason seems reasonable at the time. I suspect the OP was doing his work at a real estate office where his employer would be compensated for a sale requiring a signature. The other side in a court of law is going to call the OP a liar or mistaken with the OPs employer profiting from the mistake.

Sure, there could be no problem. I agree he is at far less risk if a stranger just came in. But, until that fact came to the fore, I suspected something else. Especially with the shifting of the burden of proof from the stamp, there is certainly more than a he said, she said burden for the person claiming forgery.