Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

Expand Messages
  • Tally Eddings
    Any signature is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it is; and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so say.
    Message 1 of 17 , May 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
      is; and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
      say. Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
      by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS. All the signing is is an
      "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
      To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


      > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
      > www.steenberg.com HAVE AT IT!!!!
      > LYNNE
      >
      >
      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
      > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
      > acceptance
      > > with explicit reservation of rights. I do what the statute says
      > to do which in
      > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
      > prejudice"
      > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
      > prejuding against
      > > those rights. The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
      > through so that
      > > it can't be "air brushed" out. When and if push comes to shove I
      > assert my
      > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
      > using my signiture
      > > on a document as evidence against me. Other rights can also be
      > asserted. In
      > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
      > relevent?
      > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
      > of the
      > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
      > negative PR take care
      > > of them.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Lewis Mohr
      Hey Tally: U B extra correct. Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of
      Message 2 of 17 , May 23, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
         
        Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
         
        For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
         
        They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

        Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
        Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
        is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
        say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
        by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
        "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
        To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


        > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
        > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
        > LYNNE
        >
        >
        > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
        > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
        > acceptance
        > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
        > to do which in
        > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
        > prejudice"
        > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
        > prejuding against
        > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
        > through so that
        > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
        > assert my
        > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
        > using my signiture
        > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
        > asserted.  In
        > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
        > relevent?
        > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
        > of the
        > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
        > negative PR take care
        > > of them.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >





        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

      • Russell Mortland
        Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing. I am a notary and I know other notaries who do
        Message 3 of 17 , May 24, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Message
          Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing.
           
          I am a notary and I know other notaries who do not follow proper procedures when doing notarizations.
           
          All if you ever went to the Secretary of State office and see the piles of complaint made against notaries, which by the way never seem to be followed up on by the Secretary of State then you see really how bad the notaries were.
           
          My father-in-law is a notary and he has never followed proper procedures when notarizing a document.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
          Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:35 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

          Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
           
          Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
           
          For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
           
          They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

          Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
          Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
          is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
          say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
          by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
          "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
          To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


          > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
          > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
          > LYNNE
          >
          >
          > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
          > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
          > acceptance
          > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
          > to do which in
          > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
          > prejudice"
          > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
          > prejuding against
          > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
          > through so that
          > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
          > assert my
          > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
          > using my signiture
          > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
          > asserted.  In
          > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
          > relevent?
          > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
          > of the
          > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
          > negative PR take care> > of them.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >





          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        • Thrust
          Messagedoes it matter if a notary witnesses your handwriting as long as it is not your signature? ... FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM! Download Spam Inspector, the
          Message 4 of 17 , May 24, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            does it matter  if a notary witnesses your handwriting as long as it is not your signature?
             
             
            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
            Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
            http://mail.giantcompany.com
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 12:01 PM
            Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

            Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing.
             
            I am a notary and I know other notaries who do not follow proper procedures when doing notarizations.
             
            All if you ever went to the Secretary of State office and see the piles of complaint made against notaries, which by the way never seem to be followed up on by the Secretary of State then you see really how bad the notaries were.
             
            My father-in-law is a notary and he has never followed proper procedures when notarizing a document.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
            Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:35 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

            Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
             
            Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
             
            For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
             
            They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

            Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
            Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
            is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
            say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
            by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
            "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
            To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


            > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
            > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
            > LYNNE
            >
            >
            > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
            > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
            > acceptance
            > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
            > to do which in
            > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
            > prejudice"
            > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
            > prejuding against
            > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
            > through so that
            > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
            > assert my
            > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
            > using my signiture
            > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
            > asserted.  In
            > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
            > relevent?
            > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
            > of the
            > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
            > negative PR take care> > of them.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >





            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            Do you Yahoo!?
            The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Russell Mortland
            Texas Government Code Section § 406.014. Notary Records (a) A notary public other than a court clerk notarizing instruments for the court shall keep in a book
            Message 5 of 17 , May 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Message

              Texas Government Code Section § 406.014. Notary Records

               

              (a) A notary public other than a court clerk notarizing instruments for the court shall keep in a book a record of:

               

              (1) the date of each instrument notarized;

               

              (2) the date of the notarization;

               

              (3) the name of the signer, grantor, or maker;

               

              (4) the signer's, grantor's, or maker's residence or alleged residence;

               

              (5) whether the signer, grantor, or maker is personally known by the notary public, was identified by an identification card issued by a governmental agency or a passport issued by the United States, or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence or alleged residence of the individual introducing the signer, grantor, or maker;

               

              (6) if the instrument is proved by a witness, the residence of the witness, whether the witness is personally known by the notary public or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence of the individual introducing the witness;

               

              (7) the name and residence of the grantee;

               

              (8) if land is conveyed or charged by the instrument, the name of the original grantee and the county where the land is located; and

               

              (9) a brief description of the instrument.

               

                   (b) Entries in the notary's book are public information.

               

                   (c) A notary public shall, on payment of all fees, provide a certified copy of any record in the notary public's office to any person requesting the copy.

               

                   (d) A notary public who administers an oath pursuant to Article 45.019, Code of Criminal Procedure, is exempt from the requirement in Subsection (a) of recording that oath.

               

              Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987 . Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 4, § 2.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 406, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 451, § 1, eff. June 14, 1989 .

               

              Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, § 71, eff. Sept. 1, 1999 .

               

               

              These are the required for the record!

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Russell Mortland [mailto:rtm@...]
              Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:02 AM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

              Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing.
               
              I am a notary and I know other notaries who do not follow proper procedures when doing notarizations.
               
              All if you ever went to the Secretary of State office and see the piles of complaint made against notaries, which by the way never seem to be followed up on by the Secretary of State then you see really how bad the notaries were.
               
              My father-in-law is a notary and he has never followed proper procedures when notarizing a document.
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
              Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:35 PM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

              Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
               
              Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
               
              For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
               
              They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

              Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
              Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
              is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
              say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
              by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
              "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
              To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


              > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
              > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
              > LYNNE
              >
              >
              > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
              > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
              > acceptance
              > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
              > to do which in
              > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
              > prejudice"
              > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
              > prejuding against
              > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
              > through so that
              > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
              > assert my
              > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
              > using my signiture
              > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
              > asserted.  In
              > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
              > relevent?
              > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
              > of the
              > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
              > negative PR take care> > of them.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >





              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Lewis Mohr
              Correctamundo Russell. I have seen more potentially fraudulent docs come out of these Title company offices than one can believe. Not once did I see any one
              Message 6 of 17 , May 25, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Correctamundo Russell.  I have seen more potentially fraudulent docs come out of these Title company offices than one can believe.  Not once did I see any one of the clerks or closing officers keep the book like that is required by statute.
                 
                And you are even more correct about the Article 16 Section 1 "Statement of Officer" and "Official Oath" followed by the Bond that is required from every commercial agent who becomes a de facto government official.  see Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 994 S.W. 2d 316 (Tex.App. Dist.8 05/27/1999), and French v. State, 572 S. W. 2d 934, 939 (1978). 
                 
                These statutory case opinions also apply to Judges, D A's, and police thugs.  In fact, if the papers of the police chief who hired the thug are not in order the evidence from the thug can be challenged. see Code of Crim Procedure 38.23(b) I think.  Says something like evidence is prohibited from one who violates the constitution.  If the appointment, statement, oath, and bond of a visiting or retired judge, or any judge, are not in order, everything they do is void.  This oath and Bond are a very important part of contracting for the privileges of de facto government offices.  Lewis  -o-

                Russell Mortland <rtm@...> wrote:

                Texas Government Code Section � 406.014. Notary Records

                 

                (a) A notary public other than a court clerk notarizing instruments for the court shall keep in a book a record of:

                 

                (1) the date of each instrument notarized;

                 

                (2) the date of the notarization;

                 

                (3) the name of the signer, grantor, or maker;

                 

                (4) the signer's, grantor's, or maker's residence or alleged residence;

                 

                (5) whether the signer, grantor, or maker is personally known by the notary public, was identified by an identification card issued by a governmental agency or a passport issued by the United States, or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence or alleged residence of the individual introducing the signer, grantor, or maker;

                 

                (6) if the instrument is proved by a witness, the residence of the witness, whether the witness is personally known by the notary public or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence of the individual introducing the witness;

                 

                (7) the name and residence of the grantee;

                 

                (8) if land is conveyed or charged by the instrument, the name of the original grantee and the county where the land is located; and

                 

                (9) a brief description of the instrument.

                 

                     (b) Entries in the notary's book are public information.

                 

                     (c) A notary public shall, on payment of all fees, provide a certified copy of any record in the notary public's office to any person requesting the copy.

                 

                     (d) A notary public who administers an oath pursuant to Article 45.019, Code of Criminal Procedure, is exempt from the requirement in Subsection (a) of recording that oath.

                 

                Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, � 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987 . Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 4, � 2.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 406, � 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 451, � 1, eff. June 14, 1989 .

                 

                Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, � 71, eff. Sept. 1, 1999 .

                 

                 

                These are the required for the record!

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Russell Mortland [mailto:rtm@...]
                Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:02 AM
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing.
                 
                I am a notary and I know other notaries who do not follow proper procedures when doing notarizations.
                 
                All if you ever went to the Secretary of State office and see the piles of complaint made against notaries, which by the way never seem to be followed up on by the Secretary of State then you see really how bad the notaries were.
                 
                My father-in-law is a notary and he has never followed proper procedures when notarizing a document.
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
                Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:35 PM
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
                 
                Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
                 
                For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
                 
                They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

                Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
                Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
                is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
                say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
                by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
                "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
                To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


                > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
                > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
                > LYNNE
                >
                >
                > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
                > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
                > acceptance
                > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
                > to do which in
                > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
                > prejudice"
                > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
                > prejuding against
                > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
                > through so that
                > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
                > assert my
                > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
                > using my signiture
                > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
                > asserted.  In
                > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
                > relevent?
                > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
                > of the
                > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
                > negative PR take care> > of them.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >





                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

              • Dessie Andrews
                That would all be well and good, that is, the swearing of the oath as it appears in the Texas Constitution. Then, you say, you would have something to hold
                Message 7 of 17 , May 26, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Message
                  That would all be well and good, that is, the swearing of the oath as it appears in the Texas Constitution.  Then, you say, you would have something to hold THEM to. I say, wrong.  Even if they take the oath, what do they swear to?  "I, John Doe, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfuly execute the duties of the office of Secretary of State of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."  
                   
                  Let's look at that.  Did he enter the office?  I think not.  He's going to execute the duties of the office.  It should say, I assume the office, or I enter the office.  He's only signed on as an employee to execute the duties of the office.  Did he swear to uphold the Texas Constitution?  I think not.  He swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of "this State". 
                   
                  Texas Penal Code, SEction 1.04(d) This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.
                   
                  I call it the King's X oath.  He had his fingers crossed.  What can you hold THEM to, even if THEY took it?  THEY're floating around on their clouds, above the soil, collecting their employee compensation and getting in line for their employee retirement check as civil service employees.  We have no government, we have no officers, other than military.  You might as well be in the Sound of Music trying to catch a rainbow and hold it in your hand.
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:44 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                  Correctamundo Russell.  I have seen more potentially fraudulent docs come out of these Title company offices than one can believe.  Not once did I see any one of the clerks or closing officers keep the book like that is required by statute.
                   
                  And you are even more correct about the Article 16 Section 1 "Statement of Officer" and "Official Oath" followed by the Bond that is required from every commercial agent who becomes a de facto government official.  see Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 994 S.W. 2d 316 (Tex.App. Dist.8 05/27/1999), and French v. State, 572 S. W. 2d 934, 939 (1978). 
                   
                  These statutory case opinions also apply to Judges, D A's, and police thugs.  In fact, if the papers of the police chief who hired the thug are not in order the evidence from the thug can be challenged. see Code of Crim Procedure 38.23(b) I think.  Says something like evidence is prohibited from one who violates the constitution.  If the appointment, statement, oath, and bond of a visiting or retired judge, or any judge, are not in order, everything they do is void.  This oath and Bond are a very important part of contracting for the privileges of de facto government offices.  Lewis  -o-

                  Russell Mortland <rtm@...> wrote:

                  Texas Government Code Section § 406.014. Notary Records

                   

                  (a) A notary public other than a court clerk notarizing instruments for the court shall keep in a book a record of:

                   

                  (1) the date of each instrument notarized;

                   

                  (2) the date of the notarization;

                   

                  (3) the name of the signer, grantor, or maker;

                   

                  (4) the signer's, grantor's, or maker's residence or alleged residence;

                   

                  (5) whether the signer, grantor, or maker is personally known by the notary public, was identified by an identification card issued by a governmental agency or a passport issued by the United States, or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence or alleged residence of the individual introducing the signer, grantor, or maker;

                   

                  (6) if the instrument is proved by a witness, the residence of the witness, whether the witness is personally known by the notary public or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence of the individual introducing the witness;

                   

                  (7) the name and residence of the grantee;

                   

                  (8) if land is conveyed or charged by the instrument, the name of the original grantee and the county where the land is located; and

                   

                  (9) a brief description of the instrument.

                   

                       (b) Entries in the notary's book are public information.

                   

                       (c) A notary public shall, on payment of all fees, provide a certified copy of any record in the notary public's office to any person requesting the copy.

                   

                       (d) A notary public who administers an oath pursuant to Article 45.019, Code of Criminal Procedure, is exempt from the requirement in Subsection (a) of recording that oath.

                   

                  Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987 . Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 4, § 2.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 406, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 451, § 1, eff. June 14, 1989 .

                   

                  Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, § 71, eff. Sept. 1, 1999 .

                   

                   

                  These are the required for the record!

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Russell Mortland [mailto:rtm@...]
                  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:02 AM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                  Lewis, you can challenge the notary for oath, bond, and following proper procedure when doing his notarizing.
                   
                  I am a notary and I know other notaries who do not follow proper procedures when doing notarizations.
                   
                  All if you ever went to the Secretary of State office and see the piles of complaint made against notaries, which by the way never seem to be followed up on by the Secretary of State then you see really how bad the notaries were.
                   
                  My father-in-law is a notary and he has never followed proper procedures when notarizing a document.
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
                  Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:35 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                  Hey Tally:  U B extra correct.  Never identify your signature as being your signature even if you know you signed the doc some corporate creep puts in front of your face.  I saw a man lose a 25K truck in court one day because he identified his signature on a COPY of a contract.  The judge and Bar card British Esquire both smiled and nearly laughed.
                   
                  Remember two things when dealing with commercial agents from the corporation government:  1. when the doc comes out of their trick bag or off their table in the equity court, it is always always a fraud, and 2, whenever a commercial agent asks you to identify your signature, always always say no it is not my signature.
                   
                  For example, if a copy of a contract comes out of the trick bag of a commercial agent and he asks you to identify your signature, a copy of your signature is not your signature.  Just say no.  Even if the signature is an original, but no notary witness, then just say no.  I always ham it up a bit and tell them it is a very good copy and did the British Esquire holding the doc sign my name to the doc?  That really makes them angry, but unfortunately none of them have yet dropped from a heart attack.
                   
                  They only time your little anus gotta pucker is when the commercial agents have gone to the trouble of bringing to court the original document and the notary who witnessed your signing.  I have not yet determined how to squirm out of that tight situation.  The notary will have his/her book with them as a witness and the notary as a witness so that is two witnesses and I think that would cook you and you be ready for the fork.  Lewis  -o-

                  Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
                  Any "signature" is NOT a signature unless YOU, the person who signs, says it
                  is;  and you ONLY say it is your signature IF it is to your advantage to so
                  say.  Even an "EXPERT" cannot terstify that a signing is a "signature done
                  by you" even though the hand writing is YOURS.  All the signing is is an
                  "autograph" without your confirmation making it your binding signature.


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "lynne" <wolfshadow51@...>
                  To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:58 PM
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof


                  > actually you can have it now -STEENBERG COMMUNITIES-
                  > www.steenberg.com   HAVE AT IT!!!!
                  > LYNNE
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BeFreeNow1@a... wrote:
                  > > This is why I still sign ALL contracts with the UCC conditional
                  > acceptance
                  > > with explicit reservation of rights.  I do what the statute says
                  > to do which in
                  > > Illinois is 810 ILCS 5/1-207, that the use of the words, "without
                  > prejudice"
                  > > or "under protest" is sufficient to reserve rights without
                  > prejuding against
                  > > those rights.  The phrase goes above my signature and is looped
                  > through so that
                  > > it can't be "air brushed" out.  When and if push comes to shove I
                  > assert my
                  > > rights such as 5th amendment to not testify against myself by
                  > using my signiture
                  > > on a document as evidence against me.  Other rights can also be
                  > asserted.  In
                  > > this case, can assertion of the ownership of private property be
                  > relevent?
                  > > Also, if things get worse I would give out the names and addresses
                  > of the
                  > > people in charge of this and let the internet community and
                  > negative PR take care> > of them.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >





                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                • Russell Mortland
                  Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.23. Evidence Not to be Used (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 26, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Message

                    Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.23. Evidence Not to be Used

                    (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.

                    (b) It is an exception to the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Article that the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.

                    Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 19 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). "Given the language of Article 38.23, the purpose and function that treaties provide, and the uniquely federal aspect involved in enforcing international agreements, we hold that treaties do not constitute 'laws' for Article 38.23 purposes."

                    Atkinson v. State, 923 S.W.2d 21, 29 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). "Although article 36.19 does not on its face purport to cover violations of article 38.23, we think it clear that the requirement of article 36.14 that the court's charge include all 'applicable to the case' subsumes the requirement of article 38.23 that a requested instruction to determine the admissibility of evidence be given whenever an issue of fact affecting the admissibility of which evidence is raised .... Accordingly, we now expressly hold that the harmless error rule of article 36.19 applies to the appellate review of errors predicated upon a disregard of the article 38.23 requirement of a jury instruction concerning evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the law."

                    State v. Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d 943, 946 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). "Therefore, where officers, as in the instant case, arrest a person based on objectively reasonable information, and that person resists the arrest, the evidence of the resistance is not obtained in violation of the law as art. 38.23 contemplates, and therefore, the exclusionary rule is not applicable. Excluding the evidence in a case such as this would have no other result than to stymie a police officer in carrying out his duties in the future."

                    Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 751 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). "If the evidence is not 'obtained' in violation of the law, then its admission into evidence is not in contravention of Article 38.23. Thus, the attenuation doctrine is not an exception to Art. 38.23, but rather is a method of determining whether evidence was 'obtained' in violation of the law, with 'obtained' being included in the plain language of the statute."

                    Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796, 799 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). "We must enforce [art. 38.23] as written, excluding all illegally obtained evidence, with the single exception as set out in the statute."

                    Polk v. State, 738 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). "The terms of [CCP art. 38.23] are mandatory .... Violation of a State statute or constitutional provision in obtaining evidence requires suppression of that evidence under Art. 38.23, supra; a judge has no discretion in ruling on the exclusion of that evidence. We find that a defendant is not required to specifically state Art. 38.23, supra, in his objection to the admissibility of evidence at trial to preserve error on appeal."

                    Kelly v. State, 669 S.W.2d 720, 726 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The defendant "asks this court to hold that the failure to include an [CCP] Art. 38.23 instruction, despite the fact that no such request was made, constitutes fundamental error and mandates reversal. This we decline to do."

                    Jordan v. State, 562 S.W.2d 472, 472 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978, panel op.). "The terms of [CCP] Article 38.23 ... are clearly mandatory, the only issue being whether under the facts of a particular case an issue concerning the validity of the search is raised by the evidence. Where no such issue is raised by the evidence, the trial court acts properly in refusing such a request .... However, where such an issue of fact is raised, the defendant has a statutory right to have the jury charged."

                    White v. State, 989 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex.App. _ San Antonio 1999, no pet.). "[The defendant] argues the trial court erred in concluding the evidence of marijuana was admissible under the good faith exception contained article 38.23(b) because the good faith exception does not apply to errors committed by law enforcement personnel. We again disagree."

                    State v. Tyson, 919 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Tex.App. _ Eastland 1996, pet. ref'd). "On cross_examination, Sergeant Placette said that the minor's parents had given written permission for the minor to be involved in the 'sting operation' but the parent who gave consent was not present when the minor purchased beer from Tyson .... As in the past, we do not interpret the sweeping language of article 38.23(a) to confer automatic third party standing upon all persons accused of crimes, such that they may complain about the receipt of evidence which was obtained by violation of the rights of others, no matter how remote in interest from themselves. Although article 38.23 might be read in such a way, we are simply unwilling, by statutory interpretation, to work such a fundamental change in this State's elemental law of standing without a more fundamental change in this State's elemental law of standing without a rather more explicit indication of legislative intent."

                    Dixon v. State, 908 S.W.2d 616, 624 (Tex.App. _ Amarillo 1995, pet. ref'd). "This case exemplifies the Hobson's choice with which defense counsel is faced when he must present his client's testimony to raise a fact question under article 38.23, but the testimony will admit the violation and waive an otherwise valid challenge to the validity of a search and seizure. Nevertheless, the waiver rule is well established and the exclusionary rule is circumscribed by its existence."

                    Owens v. State, 861 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.App. _ Dallas 1993, no pet.). "The exclusionary language of article 38.23 applies only if an officer or other person obtains evidence in violation of either the constitutions or laws of the United States or the State of Texas. Therefore, for an accused to obtain the protection of article 38.23, the police must have violated either the constitutions or laws of the United States of the State of Texas .... [W]e conclude under the specific facts of this case that article 38.23 does not provide [the defendant] greater protection than either the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution."

                    Foster v. State, 814 S.W.2d 874, 884 (Tex.App. _ Beaumont 1991, pet. ref'd). "A trial court is required to include a properly worded [CCP] article 38.23 instruction in the jury charge only if there is a factual dispute as to how the evidence was obtained .... Where no such issue is raised by the evidence, the trial court acts properly in refusing a request to charge the jury."

                    Jimenez v. State, 750 S.W.2d 798, 804 (Tex.App. _ El Paso 1988, pet. ref'd). "Standing is a function of the citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy, and as such has application in assessing challenges predicated solely upon [CCP] arts. 1.06 and 38.23."

                    Amended effective Sept. 1, 1987.

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 10:44 PM
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof

                    Correctamundo Russell.  I have seen more potentially fraudulent docs come out of these Title company offices than one can believe.  Not once did I see any one of the clerks or closing officers keep the book like that is required by statute.
                     
                    And you are even more correct about the Article 16 Section 1 "Statement of Officer" and "Official Oath" followed by the Bond that is required from every commercial agent who becomes a de facto government official.  see Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 994 S.W. 2d 316 (Tex.App. Dist.8 05/27/1999), and French v. State, 572 S. W. 2d 934, 939 (1978). 
                     
                    These statutory case opinions also apply to Judges, D A's, and police thugs.  In fact, if the papers of the police chief who hired the thug are not in order the evidence from the thug can be challenged. see Code of Crim Procedure 38.23(b) I think.  Says something like evidence is prohibited from one who violates the constitution.  If the appointment, statement, oath, and bond of a visiting or retired judge, or any judge, are not in order, everything they do is void.  This oath and Bond are a very important part of contracting for the privileges of de facto government offices.  Lewis  -o-

                    Russell Mortland <rtm@...> wrote:

                    Texas Government Code Section § 406.014. Notary Records

                     

                    (a) A notary public other than a court clerk notarizing instruments for the court shall keep in a book a record of:

                     

                    (1) the date of each instrument notarized;

                     

                    (2) the date of the notarization;

                     

                    (3) the name of the signer, grantor, or maker;

                     

                    (4) the signer's, grantor's, or maker's residence or alleged residence;

                     

                    (5) whether the signer, grantor, or maker is personally known by the notary public, was identified by an identification card issued by a governmental agency or a passport issued by the United States, or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence or alleged residence of the individual introducing the signer, grantor, or maker;

                     

                    (6) if the instrument is proved by a witness, the residence of the witness, whether the witness is personally known by the notary public or was introduced to the notary public and, if introduced, the name and residence of the individual introducing the witness;

                     

                    (7) the name and residence of the grantee;

                     

                    (8) if land is conveyed or charged by the instrument, the name of the original grantee and the county where the land is located; and

                     

                    (9) a brief description of the instrument.

                     

                         (b) Entries in the notary's book are public information.

                     

                         (c) A notary public shall, on payment of all fees, provide a certified copy of any record in the notary public's office to any person requesting the copy.

                     

                         (d) A notary public who administers an oath pursuant to Article 45.019, Code of Criminal Procedure, is exempt from the requirement in Subsection (a) of recording that oath.

                     

                    Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987 . Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 4, § 2.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 406, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 451, § 1, eff. June 14, 1989 .

                     

                    Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, § 71, eff. Sept. 1, 1999 .

                     

                     

                    These are the required for the record!

                     

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.