Author: Karapetian Hovik

Regnum, Russia
March 10 2006

Will Russian investors replace Turks and Dutchmen in Azerbaijan?
Azeri press digest

Politics. Government

Armenia’s non-constructive position in the Karabakh peace process is
pushing Azerbaijan into policy revision, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev
says Mar 1, while opening a village of refugees and displaced people
in Agdam region. He regrets that the long-term peace talks with
Armenia have given no fruits, to date. There are certain hopes but
they all are blasted by Armenia’s non-constructive position. Aliyev
notes that he has always been and will be an advocate of cease-fire.
Azerbaijan’s position is that the Karabakh conflict must be resolved
by peace, and there is a special format for that: the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs are now consulting, and there are certain
opportunities for finalizing the key principles. But Armenia is again
non-constructive and disinterested in having the principles
finalized. `And so, Azerbaijan should think over what to do,’ says
Aliyev. (AzerTag)

Speaking of the possibility of new war between Azerbaijan and
Armenia, well-known Azeri political expert Zardusht Alizade says to
Echo daily that `the talks have been in stalemate for 14 years
already.’ `I am sure that the Azeri army is absolutely unprepared for
war. We can’t start a war given the present corrupt defeatist
generals. The potential of the peace process is absolutely intact,
and there is a vast reserve of unused peace opportunities. The
parties’ inaction means their reluctance to solve the problem and to
get worthy peace for both Armenians and Azeris. In fact, both Aliyev
and Kocharyan believe that the conflict must be dragged on and the
people regularly scared. Ilham Aliyev’s statement that Azerbaijan’s
12-year Karabakh talks are already a concession and that the country
must review its position does not mean that Azerbaijan will shortly
resume war,’ Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov says to Echo.
`But this means that Azerbaijan will not talk in the format, tone and
framework insisted on by Armenia – which, in fact, means ceding not
only Karabakh but also Kalbajar and Lachin. Aliyev makes it clear
that one should not expect such a capitulation from Azerbaijan. But
this also means that Azerbaijan will not bear unlimited occupation of
its territories. To me, this means an unfolding arms race and
toughening propaganda. As regards the meeting of the co-chairs, they
will hardly find a way to thrust an unfavorable solution on
Azerbaijan – they better use the capacities they have. And the US,
Russia and Europe do have the capacities to bring Kocharyan round and
to force him to renounce his exorbitant demands. If they actually
want to use the levers, they will find a way out of the present
diplomatic deadlock, if not – they will face the prospect of a real
arms race. And if Azerbaijan will spend its own money, Armenia will
have to use the money it gets from the Americans, Russians and
Europeans.’

Political expert Eldar Ismaylov is sure that there will be no
military conflict. `The peace process must actually be in a stalemate
– for the sides appear to have no single ground in common and, I am
afraid, can no longer continue the talks. Today, they are showing the
same approaches they showed 10-15 years ago. I don’t like the way the
talks are going. This all is very much like a continued drag on.’
(Echo)

Mar 4 the Puls-R sociological service presented the results of its
monitoring `Azerbaijan in 2005.’ It is the third consecutive
monitoring by the service. The director of the project, political
expert Rasim Muzabekov says that despite prevailing optimism, Azeris
are getting increasingly critical of the present situation in their
country. Their key concerns are the Karabakh conflict, unemployment
and poverty. Most people don’t share the optimism of foreign
diplomats that there may be a breakthrough in the Karabakh peace
process in 2006. Despite improved assessment of unemployment and
poverty, they show growing discontent with corruption, tyranny, poor
education and health care. The president and the army are the only
authorities people have steadily trusted in the last three years.
They also trust media and, partly, religious institutions. More
people are beginning to advocate drastic government reforms. Many
(27.7%) are still for integrating with the EU, while NATO
sympathizers have grown scarce – from 12.4% in 2004 to 7% in 2005.
The biggest friend is Turkey, and also Russia and Iran, instead of
the US in 2004. But the selfsame Iran and Russia are also the 2nd and
the 3rd biggest enemies. The top enemy is steadily Armenia. It is
noteworthy that the number of those advocating Islamic values has
over redoubled – from 6.2% to 14.5%. (Echo)

Head of OSCE Office in Baku Maurizio Pavesi states the necessity of
electoral reforms in Azerbaijan. In a Mar 1 seminar `Towards
Transparency in Politics: a Review of Electoral System and Funding of
Political Parties in Azerbaijan’ Pavesi says: `The OSCE/ODIHR final
report on the November 2005 parliamentary elections showed that the
electoral system in Azerbaijan needs some changes in order to match
European standards.’ Pavesi says that his office has got nothing from
its post-electoral meetings with the Azeri government and opposition
and will not continue them. He says that from now on his office will
help the local authorities in technical problems only, but the
initiative should come from political parties themselves. (Zerkalo)

The US gives high attention to the protection of Azerbaijan’s sea
borders and systematically aids the country’s navy, US Ambassador to
Azerbaijan Reno Harnish says Mar 1. He says that the bigger part of
the aid is given to sea border guards, with the navy getting mostly
technical assistance: `we are presently helping them to repair
several worn-out ships.’ Harnish notes that the US will further
continue to help Azerbaijan to protect its sea borders. (Azeri Press)

Opposition

The Azeri opposition continues disintegrating as its key forces are
brawling harder – Musavat party, who has decided to work in the
parliament, and Democratic Party, whose leader is Rasul Guliyev, ex
parliamentary speaker and US resident since 1996.

In an interview to Azeri-Press Guliyev says that after the
parliamentary elections, he no longer regards Musavat as an
opposition party. Asked what he thinks about Musavat’s decision to
work in the parliament, Guliev says: `This is a painful stab in the
back for democracy hopes in Azerbaijan. I regret that the party whose
70%-80% are true democrats and intellectuals has failed to prevent an
incompetent decision by 2-3 ambitious and adventurous leaders. How
then can it fight the regime?’ They let people down during the
presidential race 2003 – they crushed their hopes and have not even
begged their pardon for being unable to protect their votes for Isa
Gambar (Musavat party leader – REGNUM). Now too, like in Apr 1920,
they prefer defeat. Then too Musavat sought cooperation with the
Bolsheviks, but the Bolsheviks refused. The same is now: Musavat
wants to cooperate with the authorities, but the authorities will
also refuse… Musavat is not longer an opposition to me. They are just
4-5 MPs that think they are a party. Once again I express my regret
that the party’s worthy members have allowed such a situation.”

Azerbaijan-Armenia. Karabakh problem

In a talk with Azeri journalists US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno
Harnish says that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict is not far
off. He hopes that the US will help the conflicting parties to solve
the problem. He quotes OSCE MG US co-chair Steven Mann as calling
2006 the year of the conflict’s resolution. Neither Armenia nor
Azerbaijan have elections this year, and their politicians will have
enough time to solve complex problems. Harnish notes that if the
conflict is not resolved in 2006, there are other scenarios – one of
them being war. But war will be a real tragedy for the Caucasus. And
so, Harnish urges all politicians, foreign ministers and presidents
to use the chance to find a way out. (Azeri Press)

The statement that Nagorno Karabakh may join Armenia is only adding
to the tensions in the region and is giving it nothing good, US
Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish says Mar 3 in comment on the
last statement by Armenian President Robert Kocharyan. He says that
the US wants the negotiating process to continue and encourages the
presidents and the FMs to continue their peace dialogue. (Echo)

`Lately, a number of European countries have shown unawareness and,
sometimes, even bias concerning some issues,’ says the head of the
department of foreign relations of the Azeri president’s executive
staff Novruz Mamedov, commenting on the European Parliament’s
decision to acknowledge the fact of destruction of Armenian
cemeteries in Julfa region of Nakhchivan AR. He says that the
European MPs should have studied the region better. He notes that
almost totally destroyed are over 1,000 Azeri historical and cultural
monuments registered by UNESCO and located in the territories
`occupied’ by Armenians. Mamedov is displeased with Europe’s
partiality on some issues – from the Mohammed cartoons to the Julfa
cemeteries. He notes that the West’s wrong position in the world
processes may lead it to a tragedy. One should show one’s position
through fair decisions only. (New Time)

Iran

Aljazeera.Net gives an article by former UN inspector in Iraq Scott
Ritter. Ritter urges the world not to believe the Bush administration
when it speaks of `diplomacy’ and a desire for a `peaceful’
resolution to the Iranian question.

In his article `The US War with Iran has Already Begun’ Ritter says
that there are several actions ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighboring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing
a base of operations for a massive military presence that will
foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s interest in Azerbaijan may
have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus
nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding
Azerbaijan’s role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan
were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this
vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA
paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are
training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of
operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering,
direct action, and mobilizing indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in
Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American
military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will
have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and
around Tehran.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists – the coastal highway
running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the
deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air
and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Commenting on the article to Echo, well-known Azeri political expert
Zardusht Alizade says: `I think that however bad at rule, the Azeri
leaders are still quite good at self-preservation. Those people will
never allow to use themselves in a game against Iran, because this
bodes big and simply unpredictable consequences.’

Business-scandal

The Azeri authorities have given start to expelling Turkish Barmek,
an LTD enjoying monopoly in electricity supply in Baku and some
regions. `If Barmek fails to clear its faults by our deadline, we may
stop our contract with them,’ Azeri Economic Development Minister
Haydar Babayev says Mar 2. He says that Barmek is defaulting on its
investment commitments: `Any foreign company operating in Azerbaijan
should respect the law and the contract.’ Azeri President Ilham
Aliyev has also criticized Barmek in a recent conference. (525th
Daily)

Mar 2 Barmek President Huseyn Arabul gave a press-conference to
express his attitude towards Aliyev’s criticism. In a conference
chaired by Aliyev President of AzerEnergy Etibar Pirverdiyev said
that Barmek was defaulting on its contractual commitments, was
under-investing in its network and so on. Aliyev instructed relevant
bodies to inquire into Barmek’s activities. Arabul says that he has
received many presidential instructions and has no objections. Arabul
says that the conference misinformed Aliyev of the Barmek’s
activities. Arabul is ready to regularly report to Aliyev on his
company’s activities. He has tried to meet with Aliyev, but failed as
he was very busy. At the same time, Arabul notes that, if need be, he
will leave Azerbaijan.

Mar 3 the Azeri Public Prosecutor’s Office brought a criminal action
against Barmek President Huseyn Arabul. The action followed an
inspection of the company’s activities by the anti-corruption
department, experts from the ministries of finances, taxes, economic
development, industry and energy and the audit chamber. Oct 13 2001
the Azeri Economic Development Ministry agreed with Turkish Barmek
Holding A.S. to give it the right to manage Bakuelectricshebeke for
25 years. The ministry undertook the obligations of the Azeri side.
Barmek pledged to invest a total of $51 mln in 5 years, but has spent
almost nothing, so far.

The company is also accused of non-compliance with several points of
its 25-year contract. It has under-invested, embezzled state
property, got involved in financial machinations. The Public
Prosecutor’s Office reports complicity by the former economic
development minister, now political detainee Farhad Aliyev and Barmek
Azerbaijan President Huseyn Arabul. Particularly, Aliyev is reported
to pay big ministerial money to some British company for something it
did not do. (AzerTag)

Meanwhile, Echo reports that the contract with Barmek will shortly be
annulled, and one of the most probable substitutes is RAO UES Russia.
Some sources say that this was discussed during recent visits by
Russians to Baku. One source is Arabul himself, who says that RAO UES
is showing interest in the Baku electric networks – something RAO
does not even try to hide in its interview to Echo.

Quite recently AzerEnergy President Etibar Pirverdiyev said that
Barmek was failing to meet its contractual obligations and President
Aliyev ordered an inspection in the company. As a result, the
contract may be annulled and the Azeri side will have to pay off all
Barmek’s investments in the country. Barmek may stop its activities
in Azerbaijan and leave vacant the grids in Baku, Sumqayit and some
other northern regions. The general rumor is that Barmek will be
replaced by a big energy company by some top official, while experts
say that coming instead will be some foreign – probably Russian –
company.

Echo reports President of the Association of Engineers and Energy
Experts of Azerbaijan Rasul Suleymanov to say that, in fact, it was
German Siemens who first won the right to manage the electric
networks in Baku, Sumqayit and other northern regions. `But for some
objective reasons, that company refused and gave its rights to the
second company in the tender – Barmek. But neither Bayva nor Barmek
have managed to ensure normal payment collection rate.’

It should be noted that almost all Farhad Aliyev-time contracts are
being criticized and annulled. Curtailing activities is Dutch Fondel
Metal, who has a 25-year contract to manage Azerbaijan’s aluminum
complex. The Dutch may be replaced by Russians – RUSAL – even though
the new economic development minister Haydar Babayev is sure that the
situation with Fondel has nothing to do with RUSAL’s wish to start up
in Azerbaijan, says Echo.

Congressional Quarterly
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 9, 2006 Thursday

CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

HOUSE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE: COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

NOTARIZATION AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE

BILL-NO:
H.R. 1458

TESTIMONY-BY: DEAN M. GOOGASIAN, PRACTICING ATTORNEY

AFFILIATION: THE GOOGASIAN FIRM

BODY:
Statement of Dean M. Googasian Practicing Attorney, The Googasian
Firm

Committee on House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and
Intellectual Properties

March 9, 2006

I am pleased to appear and provide the following testimony before the
subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual property in
support ofH.R.1458 which would provide enhanced recognition of
affidavits and other notarized documents. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today in support of legislation which would
require recognition of notarized documents from state to state
because, from my perspective and experience as a practicing attorney,
this is an important issue that needs attention. My law practice is
located in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, which is a suburb of Detroit.
I have had the pleasure during my career to practice in several
different legal areas, from clerking on the Michigan Supreme Court,
to serving as Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, to
practicing commercial and other litigation. My current practice at
The Googasian Finn is entirely in litigation, and I represent
corporations and individuals in civil lawsuits. I am not a notary
public, but Ideal with and rely on notarized documents in my
practice. In fact, notarized documents, and the recognition of
notarized documents in courts in my state, are an integral part of my
practice. Legislation requiring recognition of affidavits from other
states is needed badly, and I am pleased the panel is considering
this legislation.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION ENHANCING INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF
NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS

Many documents require notarization, including the affidavits that I
and countless other lawyers rely on for a myriad of reasons in our
daily practice. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an affidavit as “[a]
voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the
declarant before an officer authorized to 1 administer oaths, such as
a notary public.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8’h Ed, 2004. An affidavit
becomes notarized when the notary public before whom the affidavit is
sworn confirms on the face of the affidavit that the person signing
the affidavit is actually the person identified byname in the
affidavit. Affidavits and other notarized documents are used for
numerous purposes in everyday business transactions, personal and
real estate transactions, and in court proceedings as well. In court
cases, affidavits are used at every stage of litigation as a means of
putting sworn testimony before a court without the necessity of
calling witnesses physically to appear and testify. Affidavits are
required to support certain types of claims and defenses, as well as
to support and oppose motions for summary judgment seeking to dismiss
cases. Id. Affidavits are an efficient and expedient way to provide
the factual testimony needed in many court proceedings and serve to
reduce the cost of litigation and use of court time. The legislation
under consideration by the committee would modernize and streamline
the use of affidavits in state and federal courts.

Streamlining the use of affidavits and other notarized documents from
state to state is important because we live in an age of national and
global competition where speed is increasingly essential to success
in business and litigation. The difference between accomplishing a
goal or failing, closing a deal or letting it slip away, winning a
customer or client or losing it to the competition, or prevailing in
litigation is often determined by speed and efficiency. The advanced
technology we enjoy and use in our professions, including our
wireless phones, the internet, our pda’s and other mobile handheld
devices and laptop computers, is in large measure a result of this
relentless demand for speed and efficiency.

We live in an electronic age and many of the transactions that we
engage in on a daily basis are completed electronically. Today, the
business, organization or government office without a website seems
the exception, rather than the rule. Consumers every year make an
ever increasing portion of their annual purchases with their credit
cards over the internet. The U. S. Census Bureau has reported that
e-commerce for the fourth quarter of2005 was $22.9 billion, an
increase of23 % from the same period the year before.

Total e-commerce sales for 2005 were estimated to be more than $86
billion, an increase of more than 24% from the year before. Id.

No longer satisfied with dial-up internet access, which struck
manyusers with awe and wonder when it first appeared, more and more
Americans and others from around the world are now insisting on, and
paying for, broadband high speed internet access. The Federal
Communications Commission reported in December 2004 that the number
of high speed internet lines was increasing at a rate of ‘3 8% per
year.

Speed and efficiency are the hallmark of effective business in 2006.
In his book, Business @The

Speed of Thought, author Bill Gates wrote:

If the 1980s were about quality and the 1990s were about
reengineering, then the 2000s will be about velocity. About how
quickly the nature of business will change. About how quickly
business itselfwill be transacted. About how information access will
alter the lifestyle of consumers and their expectations of business.
Quality improvements and business process improvements will occur far
faster.

The ease and speed of technology in general and the internet in
particular in this electronic age permeate every aspect of the
government as well as the private sector. Twenty years ago if a
constituent wanted to find a particular government document she would
write her representative and request it and a copy might be sent by
mail or she might be able to obtain it by traveling to her local
library. Today, that same constituent can obtain the document
instantly and inexpensively, as I did in preparation for my testimony
today, by simply accessing it through a high-speed internet
connection.

In addition to its efforts to provide information electronically, our
federal government has also put e-commerce to work in its own
transactions. Effective October 10, 2000, federal legislation
instructs that “[t]he head of each executive agency shall establish,
maintain, and use, to the maximum extent that is practicable and
cost-effective, procedures and processes that employ electronic
commerce in the conduct and administration of its procurement
system.” 41 U.S.C. 426.

Just as legislation exists that requires the heads of executive
agencies to use e-commerce, many other laws on the federal and state
level have been changed to keep up with velocity of electronic
transactions. Congress has taken steps to ensure that advances in the
speed of business aren’t hindered by outdated laws. The Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, located at 15 U.S.C.
7001, for example, sets forth certain principles to “promote the
acceptance and … use of electronic signatures.” 15 U.S.C. 7031. The
first principle is to “remove paper-based obstacles to electronic
transactions,” to “[p]ermit parties to a transaction to have the
opportunity to prove in court or other proceedings that their
authentication approaches and their transactions are valid.” In
short, the act instructs that the secretary of commerce shall promote
the ability to engage in electronic transactions and to have those
transactions recognized and enforced in a court of law. Id.

The act also provides that a “a signature, contractor other record
relating to [any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce] may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability
solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. 7001. My home
state of Michigan, along with approximately 40 other states, has
adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. This important
legislation provides, among other things, that an electronic
signature is as good as a written signature, and that a record or
signature shall not be denied legal effect simply because it is in
electronic form.

Consistent with Mr. Gates’ writings, state and federal courts have
heeded the need for modernization and the efficiency offered by the
digital age. Electronic filing is now in place in federal courts
across the country. In the Eastern District of Michigan, where my
practice is located, the federal court now accepts electronic
filings, only, with limited exception. Michigan’s state courts are
rolling out electronic filing as well.

But with all the recognition and encouragement of commerce and the
willingness of business, consumer, courts, and government alike to
recognize and accept the validity of electronic transactions, and
despite all of these technological advances and the changes in
federal and state laws that have become necessary in order not to
hamper business in the 215 Century, there is at least one area where
we are still stuck in the 19″ century. It is in the area of
recognition of out of state notaries where some states are, sadly,
140 or 150 years behind the times.

Michigan is a prime example of why legislation that enhances the
recognition of affidavits from other states is essential. In
Michigan, a law written in 1879 governs the recognition of affidavits
from other states. This post-civil war law has been held to provide
that an affidavit notarized outside the state of Michigan cannot be
considered by a judge or admitted into evidence unless it has been ”
certified by the clerk ofany court of record in the county where such
affidavit shall be taken, under seal of said court.”

Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2102. The “certification” required consists of
an examination of an affidavit or other notarized document by a
government official and confirmation by that official that the notary
is a licensed, qualified notary and that the signature on the
document is, in fact, that of a notary. In order to obtain
certification, an affidavit must be taken or sent to the certifying
official who must review it and make the certification, and the
certified document returned. Depending on the identity of the
government official, the backlog of documents awaiting certification,
and the location of the government official, certifying an affidavit
can take days or weeks to complete, making it very inefficient by
today’s technologically advanced standards.

Over the years organizations like the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (“NCCUSL”) and the National
Notary Association have recognized the need for modernizing and
unifying state laws governing the recognition of affidavits and other
notarized documents from other states.

These groups have urged states to unify their laws to provide for the
recognition of documents notarized outside the state without special
certification or authentication of the type required by Michigan’s
1879 statute. One of those efforts was the Uniform Recognition of
Acknowledgments Act (“URAA”), which was proposed during the 1960’s.
In its prefatory note to the URAA, the NCCUSL explained the need for
uniform legislation on recognition of notarial acts performed outside
a particular state:

Need for Uniformity. The major need for uniformity is the need of
notaries and persons outside the enacting state who have been asked
to notarize a document for use in the enacting state… [a] major use
outside the enacting state is by personnel of the Armed

Forces of the United States who are asked by persons connected with
the Armed Forces installation to perform a notarial act for use
elsewhere.

A uniform act on the subject of recognition of acknowledgments is
becoming increasingly more imperative as more and more citizens of
the United States are employed by the federal government and American
industry away from their state of origin or property management.
[Uniform legislation] would substantially help … citizens and
residents conduct affairs having significance in [one] state at
places wherever they happen to be at the time the notarial act is
performed.

The need for uniformity today is significantly greater than it was 40
years ago when the URAA was proposed because today, more o four
citizens choose to locate or do business away from their home states
and business is increasingly conducted outside state lines.

In 1969, Michigan adopted the URAA which provided that an affidavit
notarized outside Michigan is valid and is to be recognized without
further proof of the notary’s authority if it was properly notarized
in the state in which it was signed. MCL 565.262-263. Until recently,
it was widely believed that the URAA had done away with any
requirement that affidavits from other states required any
authentication before they could be admitted into a Michigan court.
In June of last year, however, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled,
despite the URAA, that Michigan’s 1879 law controlled and that
Michigan courts would not recognize affidavits from other states that
have not been authenticated by the clerk of the court of the county
in which the affidavit was notarized.’

Copies of the opinions from Michigan Court of Appeals are attached as
Exhibits 1 and 2. Numerous groups submitted legal briefs urging that
these decisions were erroneous. The witness briefed this issue on
behalf ofthe State Bar of Michigan as well as the National Notary
Association, urging the Court to rule that the affidavits were valid
under the URAA.

Michigan’s refusal to recognize affidavits from other states without
certification creates both inefficiency and injustice. Certification
is inefficient because it adds delay and expense to everyday
transactions. Instead of being able to submit an affidavit directly,
the affidavit must be sent to the certifying official. This entails
first detaining the identity of the certifying official which can be
a difficult task in and ofitself Next, delay is caused while the
document is sent to the official and certification is completed.
Certification can be costly, particularly where delay is unacceptable
and there is a need to expedite the certification process. And
certification serves little, if any purpose.

But outdated state laws that refuse to accept affidavits and other
notarized documents from other states may cause injustice as well.
The literal language of Michigan’s statute, for example, requires not
just certification, but certification by a particular government
official -the clerk of the court of the county in which the affidavit
was notarized-from whom certification may not be available. This law
was enacted in the late 19th century when, apparently, the clerks
oflocal courts actually provided certification. In many states today,
the clerk of the county court no longer authenticates affidavits.
Today, authentication is in some states performed by the Secretary of
State and in others is performed at the local level, but not by the
clerk of a court. As a result, Michigan may refuse to recognize valid
affidavits from many sister states.’

‘In 1981, the United States joined the Hague Convention and agreed,
among other things, to recognize affidavits from other Hague
Convention countries. Those countries joining the Hague Convention
agreed to do away with the old system of requiring “legalization” of
documents, and instead, to accept documents that had been
authenticated by a certain public official and bear the “apostille.”
There are those who would argue that under current Michigan law even
authentication from the highest levels of another states government-
an apostille-may not be admissible in Michigan. This creates the
potential and illogical situation that an affidavit from Florida that
must be recognized by the governments of such far-flung countries as
Armenia, Botswana, Figi, Serbia and Montenegro, Malta, and Tonga may
be refused recognition in the state of Michigan. See
wwvv.state.gov/m/a/autli/c1267.htm and

A review of the U.S. Notary Reference Manual, published by the
National Notary Association, reveals that in seven of the thirteen
states whose representatives appear on this subcommittee, including
California, Florida, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Utah, Tennessee and
New York, certification by the clerk of the local court is not
available. As a result, Michigan may refuse to recognize valid
affidavits from these states .

The refusal of a state to recognize documents notarized out of state
creates real world problems for lawyers, businesses, and individuals
as well as the very real threat of injustice. A few examples maybe
helpful to illuminate just what problems may be caused:

Example #1: A troubling situation confronts creditors. Each year,
retail creditors including large department stores, home centers,
auto companies, and credit card companies are required to file
thousands of lawsuits to collect millions owed to them. These
businesses have extended credit to Michigan’s consumers and need to
enforce their accounts. The individual accounts are relatively small,
but the total amount owed by these individual debtors to out ofstate
creditors collectively is large. Lawyers for these creditors use
Michigan’s streamlined statutory scheme for collections by creditors
which requires the submission of an affidavit verifying the debt
owed. Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2145. This affidavit must be filed within
10 days of its signing in order to create a statutory presumption
that permits the entry of a default judgment. Id. Many creditors,
including auto companies located in Michigan, have their credit
operations in other states, and the employees who possess the
knowledge necessary to sign the affidavit verifying the debt are
located outside Michigan. Creditors now face the difficult,
expensive, and inefficient task of obtaining authentication for each
and every affidavit submitted to collect on a debt. The delay caused
by obtaining authentication- which usually involves receiving the
affidavit by mail, forwarding the affidavit by mail to the
appropriate authenticating official, waiting for the official to
receive and process the affidavit, then waiting for the affidavit to
return by mail before it can be filed -may result in the affidavits
being filed more than 10 days after their signing. This, in turn, may
make Michigan’s streamlined debt collection process unavailable to
creditors and subject them to costly and inefficient litigation.

Example #2: A corporation located in California issued in a Michigan
state court based upon a belief that the corporation is the parent
corporation of a local business with a similar name. The California
corporation has no connection with the local business being sued and
seeks to file a motion for some judgment, supported by an affidavit
from its CEO that there is no relation between the two corporations.
Certification is not available from the court clerk in California,
and the CEO maybe forced to fly to Michigan (or another state where
certification can be obtained from the court clerk) in order to
execute an affidavit admissible in a Michigan court.

Example #3: A world renowned forensic expert is located within the
state of New York, and a local county prosecutor in Michigan wants to
retain that expert to provide an opinion on the validity of an audio
recording. By statute in New York, authentication is no longer
performed by the clerk of the local court, but instead by the
Secretary of State, and the expert may therefore be unable to submit
in a Michigan court an affidavit notarized in New York. The
prosecutor may face the choice of either incurring the expense of
having the expert travel to Michigan to execute an affidavit or
simply foregoing the use of the expert.

Example #4: A mother relocates to Florida with her children following
a divorce. She and her ex-husband become involved in a custody
dispute and the ex-husband files a motion in the Michigan court that
granted the divorce seeking a change in custody. By Florida statute,
authentication can only be performed by the Florida Secretary of
State and the clerk of the court is no longer permitted to certify
affidavits. Fla. Stat. Ann. 117.103. The mother needs to provide
evidence to the Court in order to preserve her parental rights, but
the Michigan court may not recognize the affidavit she wishes to
submit because she cannot obtain court-clerk authentication of her
Florida affidavit.

Other examples of the problems caused by the refusal of states to
recognize notarizations from other states are as innumerable as the
situations where those documents are required.

CONCLUSION

Legislation like H.R. 1458 and the alternative that has been offered
would greatly increase the efficiency of our courts and aid
businesses and individuals alike. As a practicing lawyer, I encourage
the subcommittee to further this legislation and strongly support its
passage. I would again like to thank the committee for its attention
today.

You can keep Saab, Kerkorian tells GM

James Mackintosh, Geneva
02mar06

REBEL shareholder Kirk Kerkorian has dropped his demand that General
Motors close or sell Saab, its troubled Swedish car-making division.

GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz said he had briefed Jerry York, Mr
Kerkorian’s representative on the GM board of directors, and Mr York
had agreed that Saab – and Hummer, the profitable sports utility
vehicle brand – be retained. A spokeswoman for Mr York declined to
confirm his position.

Mr Kerkorian became GM’s third-biggest shareholder last year and has
offered to buy more shares if his plan, drawn up by Mr York, is
followed through.

Mr Lutz, speaking at the Geneva motor show on Tuesday, said: “He (Mr
York) thought Saab was still what it was a few years ago when it was
this nice company sitting in Trollhattan (its Swedish base) with
basically all the structural cost of an entire automotive company but
selling only 120,000 units a year.

“That model was frankly hopeless. I took Jerry through it the other
day at great length and he now understands there is no more Saab you
can sell.”

He said that Saab was now integrated into GM’s global product
development and manufacturing system, which involved a new small
Cadillac being built in Trollhattan. The next generation 9-3, Saab’s
biggest seller, will be built at one of GM’s German factories.

“Trying to sell Saab and Hummer out of GM is like saying there are too
many eggs in that omelette – please take them out and sell them off.”

Mr York last month demanded GM dump Hummer and Saab to refocus on its
core American brands, which are in deep trouble.

GM lost $US5.6 billion last year in its US automotive business as
market share crumbled and sales of its most profitable vehicles
collapsed.

Mr York said that, if his plan were adopted, Mr Kerkorian might buy an
extra 12 million shares, worth $US244 million ($330 million) at the
$US20.36 they were trading at early on Tuesday afternoon, when they
were up US25c.

Elements of the plan, including personal wage sacrifices by top
executives and a halving of the dividend, have been carried out. Saab
is expanding its model line-up, with a small car being considered and
a car-SUV crossover already approved.

© The Australian

WIND DEPRIVED THE TOWN OF ELECTRICITY

A1+
01:16 pm 13 March, 2006

The wind with the speed 27 meters per second has damaged the roofs
of houses and blocks of flats in the town of Vardenis, region of
Gegharqounik.

The wind has also collapsed the electricity poles as a result of which
the town was deprived of electricity for several hours. A Committee has
been created investigating the harm caused by the wind. According to
the head of the department of architecture of the Vardenis municipality
Hamlet Gasparyan, the Committee has already received 150 applications
about damages.

“Qyavar” TV Company of Gavar

VOLUME OF AGRICULTURAL LOANS DOUBLES IN GEGHARKUNIK MARZ

Noyan Tapan
Mar 13 2006

GEGHARKUNIK, MARCH 13, NOYAN TAPAN. The volume of agricultural loans
has doubled in Gegharkunik marz. Andranik Hakobian, Director of ACBA
Bank Gegharkunik Branch, told NT correspondent that in 2004, credits
of the total amount of 1.8 mln USD were provided to 1,400 borrowers,
whereas these indices made 3.7 mln USD and 3,360 borrowers last
year. According to A. Hakobian, small farmers that take loans of up
to 3,000 USD make up 60% of the borrowers. About 20% use loans of up
to 30 thousand USD, and several big farms – up to 150 thousand USD. It
was noted that now all the communities of Gegharkunik marz make use of
the credit services of ACBA Bank, with 100% of the loans being repaid.

The total amount of farm crediting is expected to reach 5 mln USD
this year.

PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
by Emil Danielyan

Transitions Online, Czech Republic
March 13 2006

Young men refusing to serve in the armed forces for religious reasons
are again being prosecuted in Armenia, despite the introduction
nearly two years ago of a legal alternative to compulsory military
service. Conscientious objectors, mainly Jehovah’s Witnesses, are
refusing to enlist for alternative civilian service on the grounds
that it is controlled by the Armenian military. About 50 of them are
currently in jail or are awaiting trial.

Local and international human rights organizations have long criticized
the authorities in Yerevan for jailing conscientious objectors. In
2001, the Council of Europe made elimination of the practice a key
condition for admitting Armenia as a member. However, an Armenian
law on alternative service that came into force in July 2004 has so
far failed to address the problem. Council of Europe officials say
it does not fully meet European standards and should be amended.

The law gave male citizens who refuse mandatory military service
two options: to perform noncombat duties inside army bases for three
years or to spend three and a half years at civilian institutions.

After the law came into force, 22 Jehovah’s Witnesses opted for
the latter option and were assigned to special civilian hospitals,
including Armenia’s largest psychiatric clinic. But they soon
discovered that these facilities are essentially under military
control – the workers were regularly checked on by military police
officers, confined to the medical institutions for 24 hours a day,
and even fed by the army.

‘NOT AN OPTION’

“For young Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be attached to the military in any
form is impossible because that means cooperating with the military,”
said Andre Carbonneau, a Canadian lawyer representing the Jehovah’s
Witnesses in Armenia. That, he added, would run counter to one of
the main tenets of the U.S.-based Christian sect.

That also explains why all 22 men abandoned their places of service
before being arrested in August. Thirteen of the objectors were
tried and controversially sentenced to between two and three years’
imprisonment under articles of the Armenian Criminal Code that deal
with desertion from military units. The court sentences occurred before
the authorities enacted a law in January that declared abandonment
of civilian service a crime punishable by imprisonment.

According to Carbonneau, this constitutes a retroactive enforcement
of the law, illegal under Armenia’s constitution. Acting on the
attorney’s complaint, an Armenian appeals court recently overturned
virtually all of the Jehovah’s Witness convictions by lower courts.

However, it stopped short of ordering the release of the conscientious
objectors, only sending their cases back to prosecutors. The latter
are refusing to set the men free, pending another trial.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have responded by lodging an appeal to
the European Court of Human Rights, which they hope will order the
release of the men, the only Armenians to date to perform alternative
service. But Carbonneau admitted that there is little they can do about
nearly 30 other Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused outright to perform
military-controlled civilian duty after the alternative service law
came into force. They are now being kept in pretrial detention. “The
law on alternative service is not an option for any conscientious
objector,” he said.

Council of Europe bodies monitoring Armenia’s compliance with the
country’s membership obligations appear to share this view. “The
Council of Europe and its monitoring mechanisms consider that the
commitments in this area have not fully been met with the current
legislation,” the head of the Strasbourg-based organization’s Yerevan
office, Bojana Urumova, told EurasiaNet. Urumova said it should be
amended “in a way which will meet European standards and resolve
this issue definitely.” Armenian authorities have to come up with a
“genuine civilian alternative to military service,” she added.

OBJECTS OF SUSPICION

The Armenian government, meanwhile, has drafted amendments to the law
on alternative service that will be debated by parliament later this
year. With government officials refusing to disclose the amendments’
content for the moment, it is not clear whether they will satisfy the
Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Armenian military has always feared that
alternative service could serve as a legal loophole for mass draft
evasion; hence, its desire to strictly regulate the process. In
a December 2004 directive, the chief of the Armenian army staff,
Col.-Gen. Mikael Harutiunian, ordered military officials to regularly
report to him about civilian compliance with regulations that, among
other things, require them to stay in their place of service 24 hours
a day and take leaves of absence only with official permission.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have long been viewed with suspicion by the
authorities and a large part of Armenia’s population, primarily due to
their strong opposition to military service. Many Armenian politicians
and ordinary people alike consider their pacifist doctrine a serious
threat to the national security of a country locked in a bitter
territorial conflict with one of its neighbors, Azerbaijan. The sect
had for years been denied official registration for that reason.

The government formally legalized it only in October 2004, in a move
that was condemned by the Armenian Apostolic Church. “The activities of
totalitarian religious organizations, including Jehovah’s Witnesses,
run counter to our national and state interests and aspirations,”
the church, to which over 90 percent of Armenians around the world
nominally belong, said in a statement issued at the time.

In the words of Tigran Harutiunian, a Jehovah’s Witness spokesman in
Armenia, apart from the renewed prosecution of its young male members,
the religious group has faced no government restrictions since then
and currently boasts more than 20,000 Armenian adherents.

“We are happy to be able to freely talk about our faith,” he said.

BLOODIEST ETHNIC CLEANSING IN HUMAN HISTORY

OhmyNews International, South Korea
Oct 18 2005

Once again someone reveals that hatred of America does not need to be
based on facts. It is demonstrated by this provocative but baseless
statement.

“America started with the bloodiest systematic ethnic cleansing in
human history,”

This is just a blatant lie.

Stevo could be just making stuff up or he could be trying to blame the
United States for everything that happened in the Americas (North and
South) from the day the first Spaniards found the Caribbean islands
in 1492.

There are no solid number on how many native people lived in the
America prior to the arrival of the Europeans, but here is the
conclusion from an article that examines various estimates.

By 1650, records suggest that only 6 million Indians remained in
all of North America, South America, and the Caribbean. Subtract 6
million from even a conservative estimate of the 1492 population
-like Denevan’s consensus count of 54 million – and one dreadful
conclusion is inescapable: The 150 years after Columbus’s arrival
brought a toll on human life in this hemisphere comparable to all of
the world’s losses in World War II.

It is undeniable that the European Conquerors were brutal. It is
debatable as to whether or not their brutality was much different
than other societies at the time.

There were massacres of the native populations, but most of the deaths
were due to disease that came with the Europeans. There are cases
where disease was deliberately spread, but much of it was just the
natural result of interaction between two distinctly different peoples.

To address this issue properly we must begin with the most important
reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline-namely, the spread
of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity. This
phenomenon is known by scholars as a “virgin-soil epidemic”; in North
America, it was the norm.

The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was
smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that
deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease;
in several cases, entire tribes were rendered extinct. Other killers
included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus,
bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. Although syphilis was
apparently native to parts of the Western hemisphere, it, too, was
probably introduced into North America by Europeans.

About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous
enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry,
concludes Alfred Crosby, “but the invisible killers which those men
brought in their blood and breath.” It is thought that between 75 to
90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

That text came form long and fairly comprehensive article titled
“Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?” (Guys like Stevo will
love this, it has lots of gory detail about atrocities committed by
European colonists).

Ok, that was mostly background, now to Stevo’s claim that “America
started with the bloodiest systematic ethnic cleansing in human
history”. The United states of America we know today didn’t take
shape until the 1800s. The United States formed from as a cluster of
rebellious British colonies along the East Coast of North America in
1776. By this point in time the native populations had been decimated
by nearly 300 years of diseases that came with the first European
arrivals. The simple fact is there were not enough Native American’s
left in the territories claimed by the US to allow the US to commit
“the bloodiest systematic ethnic cleansing in human history”. With
only a few million Native Americans left the US could not possiblly
have done what Stevo claims.

Pol Pot cleansed his nation of about 1.7 million people he deemed
unfit to live and the Ottomans cleansed about that many Armenians.

The Japaese deliberately slaughtered millions of Chinese. Hitler
systematically killed 12 million. If you count the effects of disease
the Spanish may have killed over 20 million by conquering the Inca
Empire.

If someone wants to criticize the US for the genocide that killed
hundreds-of-thousands to millions of Native Americans, that’s fine.

The Criticism is deserved. However before anyone levels baseless
allegations about the “the bloodiest systematic ethnic cleansing in
human history” they should at least check a few facts. That is unless
they are deliberately exaggerating and lying. In that case they are
just fraudulent individuals.

K/bbs_view.asp?ba_code=63&bb_code=319290

Azerbaijani TV Channel One,
Oct 14 2005

Azerbaijan’s patience over Karabakh running out, president says

Azerbaijan’s patience in the peace talks on Nagornyy Karabakh is
running out, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said.

Addressing the forum of the youth in the Azerbaijani capital on 14
October, Aliyev said: “I have said and I am saying again. Since the
talks and opportunities have not exhausted, we are trying to continue
the peace talks. However, our patience has limits and is not endless.
For how long can we continue these talks? For how long will this
situation remain unchanged? This is our right.

“The whole international community recognizes, supports and expresses
a clear attitude towards Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. However,
the issue has not been resolved due to various reasons. I would not
like to talk much about this.

“I am totally convinced that given our wish to resolve the
Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict fairly – within
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity – along with the talks, one should
pay major attention to a military build-up.”

Aliyev also spoke about Azerbaijan’s achievements in all spheres.

Noyan Tapan News Agency
Oct 14 2005

VARTAN OSKANIAN MEETS WITH HIS COLLEAGUE, LOCAL ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN
SINGAPORE

SINGAPORE, OCTOBER 14, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Vartan
Oskanian, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia who is on an
official visit to countries of Asia and Pacific Ocean, met with his
colleague George Yeo on October 13 in Singapore.

At the meeting Minister Oskanian presented briefly the state of
Armenia within the present geographic-political surroundings,
opportunies of the region and development tendencies. Then exchange
of ideas was promoted around a number of issues of mutual interest.

In this sense, possibilities of development of bilateral relations
were discussed starting with holding consultations between the
Foreign Ministries and creation of a legal-contractual field. The
possibilities of holding a consultation concerning the Singaporian
development experience was also discussed. Appreciating the attempt
of cooperation in international organizations, especcially the UN, a
bilateral readiness was expressed to deepen that cooperation from now
on as well.

As Noyan Tapan was ifnormed by the RA Foreign Ministry’s Information
and Public Relations’ Department, conflicts present in different
parts of the world and ways of their settlement were spoken about at
the meeting. Within this framework, Minister Oskanian presented the
present state and prospects of the negotiation process of the Nagorno
Karabakh issue.

On the same day, Minister Oskanian visited the Armenian Church of
Singapore and had a meeting with local Armenians.

In the evening, V.Oskanian had a working visit with Zainul Abidin
Rasheed, the State Minister of Singapore. Late on the same day, RA
Foreign Minister left Singapore for Yerevan.

NSDU’S “YES” WILL BECOME “NO” IF…

A1+
| 20:20:03 | 13-10-2005 | Politics |

The National Self-Determination Union, who spoke out for the
constitutional amendments is not going to join any other party with
analogous position.

“They should join us, since we are the initiators” NSDU leader Paruyr
Hayrikyan considers.

Till the end of the next week is going to hold talks with all the
political forces, which we treat seriously. “If we reach consent with
those who adopted the NSDU idea on formation of alternative national
power with enthusiasm and they will vote against the amendments we
will support them.

If it does not happen will give ok to the amendments”

To note, P. Hayrikyan said that he and Stepan Demirchyan agree on
creation a state with strong presidential system. “Strong presidential
system implies strong parliament and the U.S. is a bright example of
it”, he stated.