i just  want to know if the certificate of lieu of legal capacity of that filed of raymond driscoll is  alrea?
931508
Ask the US embassy in Manila.
249319
This is a guarantee seal applied to 'securities' in the process of transfer, by member institutions of the Medallion program.\n\nThis Medallion seal certifies that the signature is genuine and has legally binding authority. Furthermore the guarantor of the seal assumes any financial responsibility.\n\nHowever being an abundant caution you must get its authenticity verified that those are genuine.
303461
I don't know the answer, but they are probably too complicated to answer in a Yahoo post.\nTalk to a Swisse attorney.
810197
You don't say who made this request to the Coucil and in what circumstances.  It sounds as though the Council is being gently prodded to think things through and perhaps withdraw an action to recover what is owed on the grounds that the person is somewhat deranged or mentally handicapped.  Those hearing the case can't say such a thing outright, but they can drop loud hints to the effect that if a person isn't in a fit mental state to deal with his financial affairs, it is perhaps not a good thing to bring him to court, especially if he is arguing with deep conviction that he doesn't understand why he is being prosecuted and doesn't feel he owes anything.  Maybe now that we are not allowed to use Latin in court, "moral culpability" is the new "mens rea".
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
450970
I may be wrong but I do not think they ask for police certs. It is usual for areas near the US consulates to be surrounded by "Advisors" Ask one of them and let them help you out. It may be a shorter route.   After 17 years without any toher problems, I don't think they will bother oyu too much. \nhere may be a process whereby you may get that record expunged. Try to see what can be done.\n\nGood luck.
969583
Your question doesn't make sense.  All the more reason you should consult an attorney, who will know what state law we are talking about, and will be able to see the complaint.\n\nEdited to add: Wow.  Gunny's not just wrong, but really wrong.  28 USC 753 has nothing to do with "defendant's oaths", but has to do with the oath that a court reporter takes.  Fed. R. Evid. 603 doesn't answer the question about the waiver of oath either.  The forty year old case probably isn't relevant: this sounds like a local property dispute where a complaint has been filed, so the federal law that Gunny is citing probably doesn't even begin to apply.  The person who is asking the question has a serious legal problem and needs serious legal advice, and Gunny is not only leading her down the wrong path, but telling the asker to ignore the correct advice.
1078594
He is an officer of the court and I am not sure their titles are notaries. They don't need a state seal. I thought they were Justices of the Peace.
164842
http://www.azcorrections.gov/ISearch.htm \nIf the first link doesn't help, try there
44092
Yes.Try to talking to a lawyer to get the fact's...
560772
ya,\n but  having    "A" CERTIFACTION
318446
Ask the Clerk of the Court.
174668
This seems to be the only applicable statute: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-4301.html
573618
Try here, it's free.\n\nhttp://www.legalforms.name/
365064
You contact the court clerk where it is filed.  He/she will tell you how to find out.  How would we know?  Crystal ball?  Tea leaves?
930237
YES.  You can ask the courts for just about anything.  Good luck.
451271
http://www.dcbar.org/\n\nIf the attorney is licensed in DC, ths is the place.