THE ARMENIAN POLICE PROMISED TO CLEAR UP ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES VERY
SOON, CONNECTED WITH THE RECENT MURDER IN THE CENTER OF YEREVAN
YEREVAN, MARCH 10. ARMINFO. Police of Armenia promised to clear up all
the circumstances of the recent great murder in the center of Yerevan,
said today during a press conference the head of the General Criminal
Investigation Department of the Police of Armenia colonel Haik
Militonian. He reported that the investigation is going on. The police
hope that soon they will have something certain to report. Haik
Militonyan noted that the police has several versions of the incident,
but they are not to be published in the interests of the
investigation. It should be reminded that March 4 the head of the
‘Kaghtsrik’ ltd. Ashot Vardanian (born in 1952) was murdered on the
Sayat Nova Avenue. According to unconfirmed reports he was also the
owner of the former “Hayrenik” supermarket.
Replying to the question about the murder of a cash messenger on the
February 3 in Yerevan, Mr. Militonian said that the murdered was
resulted from the dissatisfactory level of the security service. To
opinion of the head the Investigation Department the cash messenger
was just helpless, therefore the criminals succeeded. In connection
with this Mr. Militonyan signed that the work of cash messengers’
security has being organized without the help of police until very
lately, but now the question of licensing has been solved.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘UNICOMP’ PRESENTS A NEW PROGRAM IN ARMENIA
YEREVAN, MARCH 10. ARMINFO. The festive opening of ‘A thousand and one
night of Centrino’ program will take place today in Yerevan, reports
the UNICOMP company to ARMINFO.
According to the information received, on the event a portable PC will
be presnted – a lap-top created on the base of the newest binuclear
platform by CMT (Intel Centrino Mobile Technology). The latter is
meant for students, businessmen and other persons traveling. The
platform increases the opportunities of wireless internet connection.
Intel company representatives assure that the new lap-top model has
four main advantages of the previous one: 70% higher capacity, Wi-Fi
wirless internet connection, 28% lower electricity consumption and 30%
lighter weight. The program will last a month, and in its frameworks
the students of Armenian universities will get acquainted with the
Intel Centrino Duo computers, produces by the Armenia Unicom company.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 10, 2006 Friday
REPORT OF THE ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: AZERBAIJAN’S POLICY
COMPROMISES SECURITY OF THE CAUCASUS
ARMENIA CONSIDERS NAGORNO-KARABAKH’S EXISTENCE IN AZERBAIJAN OR AS AN
ARMENIAN ENCLAVE AN IMPOSSIBILITY; Defense Minister of Armenia Serzh
Sarkisjan made a report “Priorities of the National Security Strategy
of the Republic of Armenia”.
Report made by Secretary of the National Security Council and Defense
Minister of Armenia, Serzh Sarkisjan, “Priorities of the National
Security Strategy of the Republic of Armenia” states that
Nagorno-Karabakh’s existence as a part of Azerbaijan or as an enclave
is an impossibility.
The document posted on the official web site of the Armenian Defense
Ministry emphasizes that Armenia views as a must availability of land
border between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia and international
guarantees of its participation in peace processes. Here is an
excerpt from the document, “International guarantees of non-renewal
of the war and safety of the population are also needed. The
“suspended” nature of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and the policy
Azerbaijan is pursuing in connection with the conflict set up
symmetric and asymmetric threats to national security of Armenia. The
aggressive policy of Azerbaijan intent on a solution to the problem
through accomplishment of military superiority over Armenia poses a
direct military threat. This policy may destabilize all of the
region.”
The report points out that the constant threat prevents radical
reforms in the military sphere of Armenia and facilitates an arms
race. “It is with this purpose in mind that official Baku is
inflaming hatred of the Armenians in the Azerbaijani people,” the
report stated. “This position is not worthy of a country promoting
the European system of values. It only proves that the authorities of
Azerbaijan are going through the motions for appearances’ sake.”
When Sarkisjan’s report dwells on Turkey from the standpoint of the
conflict, it points out that official Ankara is promoting the
interests of Azerbaijan. Here is another excerpt, “Turkey is aware
that a fair solution to the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the
priorities of Armenian national security, and that the solution
favoring Azerbaijan will affect the international and regional role
played by Armenia and may even jeopardize the very existence of the
Armenian people. To accomplish all of that, Turkey is assisting
Azerbaijan so as to disrupt the military parity and set up conditions
for a military solution to the problem at hand. Tension in the
Armenian-Turkish relations is also ascribed to Turkey’s involvement
in numerous regional economic and transport programs that do not
include Armenia (like construction of the Baku-Dzheikhan and
Baku-Erzerum gas pipelines or a railroad connecting Kars and
Akhalkalaki). Promoted with help from the government of Turkey, all
these programs and projects aim at economic isolation of Armenia and
demotion of its role in the region. This policy encourages “the
policy of negation” on the part of Azerbaijan and strengthens its
militarism… Neutralization of these threats is only possible when
Turkey abandons its hostility with regard to Armenia. Quite an
effective role from this standpoint may be played by the
international community and particularly organizations like the
European Union, NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, and the United States.
“Strategy of Armenia’s external security aims at these efforts and
activization of pressure that should be applied to Turkey.”
Source: REGNUM news agency, March 6, 2006
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 10, 2006 Friday
RUSSIAN TROOPS OUT OF GEORGIA BY DECEMBER 31, 2007;
The government confirmed a project of the corresponding agreement
Last week, the government confirmed the project of the agreement
about withdrawal of Russian military bases from the territory of
Georgia presented by the Russian Federation Defense Minister. This
event passed almost without any attention from the side of mass
media. However, this event could be regarded as an important step for
the Russian leadership, which lets determine the mechanism of
withdrawal of Russian contingents from Akhalkalaki and Batumi, as
well as forecast, to some extent, the policy of the Russian
Federation in the Transcaucasia region.
For realization of the agreement, the Russian Federation Defense
Ministry will provide 836.7 million roubles in 2006. In 2007 – 820.5
million roubles, in 2008 – 510.6 million roubles. As we see, the sums
are significant – more than 2 billion roubles. However, it seems that
there would be much more expenses since the withdrawn troops will
have to be located in new places, and provide apartments for those
who are in need etc. But they do not think about that today. The
government has another task – to withdraw the troops as soon as
possible.
It is of no accident that the Russian side agreed to confirm the
document in a written form – to confirm that the Russian military
bases in Batumi and Akhakalaki function in the terminating regime. It
is noted that the withdrawl of Russian military hardware would be
realized by the end of 2006. It was reported before that great part
of that hardware would go to Armenia. Despite protests of Azerbaijan,
the Georgian side does not interfere with that. Meanwhile, it is
noted that everything will be terminated by October 1, 2007, “but in
any case the date of December 31, 2007 is the limit”.
“The complete withdrawal of the Russian military base in Batumi, as
well as department of the Russian troops grouping in Transcaucasia
will be realized during the year 2008”, it is noted in the project of
the agreement.
The Russian side is obliged not to use military bases and objects for
purposes aimed against state interests of Georgia, and do not allow
running shootings from all kinds of armament, excluding rifles and
machine-guns in special places provided by the Georgian side. In the
project’s text, it is noted that “the Russian side is obliged not to
have, to store or to transact weapons of mass destruction through the
territory of Georgia, as well as not to run research aimed at
developing such armament”. The project of the document foresees that
the agreement would be in legal force until December 31, 2008, in
case “if neither side would inform the other one through diplomatic
channels about its intention to stop the power of the agreement in
case of its essential infringement by the other side”. In this case,
the law power of the agreement ends 30 days after such declaration
made.
In this way, de jure, in the project of the agreement, the
obligations of the Russian side are mentioned. However, the Georgian
side also have some. In the document it is noted that the Georgian
side, in correspondence with the document, is to provide Russia with
possibility to dispatch extra hardware needed for the process of
withdrawal. In this connection, the Georgian authorities are obliged
to provide the opportunity of using the air space of Georgia for
aircraft of the Russian Federation Defense Ministry, as well as
provide railway, road and air transportation of armament and military
hardware.
At that, the Georgian side is obliged to provide a sensible vital
activity and temporary functioning of the Russian military bases and
objects until the termination of the withdrawal process. The project
of the agreement foresees that the Georgian side will provide a
simplified procedure for the Navy ships arriving to Georgian ports,
for removal of armament and military hardware. Aiming at control over
the fulfilling of this document’s clauses, the sides are intended to
establish a joint Russian-Georgian commission, which would operate in
Tbilisi.
In this way, the project of the Russian-Georgian agreement in its
draft variant is fascinating. Meanwhile, Russian soldiers feel
themselves aliens – they do not even have visas. Official services
and persons provoke them anyway they like. Presidents Vladimir Putin
and Mikhail Saakashvili may terminate all this, who are to sign the
coordinated law-project. However, the date of their meeting has not
been fixed yet.
Source: WPS own observer
Translated by Denis Shcherbakov

Rugby Advertiser
March 9, 2006
Editor’s Viewpoint – 09/03/06
THIS week Advertiser Peter Aengenhesiter once again delves deep into
the murky waters of freedom of speech.
WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL HOW WE EXERCISE OUR FREEDOMS…
If i said the D-Day landings never took place, aliens are among us,
and 9/11 didn’t happen, there is really only one possibility.
It is almost certain that I would be dismissed as a complete idiot.
But, for the moment, I would not be imprisoned for my beliefs.
By now, everyone will have heard of the revisionist historian David
Irving who was jailed for three years in Austria for denying The
Holocaust. Actually I don’t think think he did, he denied that it was
as extensive as they said.
Until recently, I was pretty much unaware of this law, which is
actually in force in most of the countries of the EU.
And in Switzerland (of all places, and I simply can’t fathom out
why), it is against the law to deny that Ottoman Turks committed
genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
Many have claimed the reaction of the offensive caricatures of The
Prophet Mohammed published around the world was excessive in the face
of what was only hard-earned freedom
of speech in the West.
We might even think we are ‘better’, but we should be careful lest we
be accused of hypocrisy.
Abu Hamza al Masri, the Muslim cleric, was jailed recently for seven
years. We called the offence incitement to murder and race hate –
others could easily argue ‘freedom of speech’.
And actually, have you ever seen a Christian figure, leader or icon,
carictured in any way by Muslims, let alone in the degrading,
derogatory or insulting depiction that these cartoon were displayed?
I believe in the freedom of speech for everyone, without fear of
damage to life, limb or liberty.
But you are only walking a better path in this life and with this
freedom. If you treat others with the respect with which you would
like to be treated.
Here endeth the sermon..!
And let’s hope England trounces the smelly French in the Six Nations
rugby taking place this weekend.

Japan Economic Newswire
March 10, 2006 Friday 11:20 AM GMT
Koizumi, Azerbaijan’s Aliyev agree on economic, energy cooperation
TOKYO March 10
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and visiting Azerbaijan
President Ilham Aliyev agreed Friday to deepen their countries’
economic ties through trade, investment, energy projects and other
exchanges.
In a joint press conference after their talks at the premier’s
official residence in Tokyo, Koizumi called for “further improving
Azerbaijan’s trade and investment climate,” saying Japanese
businesses are interested in the country.
The Japanese leader also expressed thanks for Baku’s support of
Tokyo’s bid to get permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council,
and voiced hope Azerbaijan will peacefully resolve its regional
conflict with Armenia.
Aliyev said his country has well-funded economic development plans
and needs “good partners — companies with advanced technology,
knowledge, expertise” possibly from Japan which he said is a world
leader in this area.
According to a joint statement the two leaders signed before speaking
to the press, the Azerbaijani side stated its intention to continue
efforts to improve its trade and investment environment through
deregulation plus tax and legal reforms.
Both sides expressed intention to further develop cooperation in the
field of energy, praising two projects in Azerbaijan to develop an
oil field and build an oil pipeline that are joined by Japanese
concerns.
Visiting Japan for the first time, Aliyev arrived Tuesday for a
four-day stay.
On Thursday, he met with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and
agreed to foster bilateral ties through cooperation in the
development of oil and natural gas exploration in the Caucasus state.

The Washington Times
March 10, 2006 Friday
Q&A: Terrorism and tenure;
Author warns of communists, jihadists and other ‘dangerous’
professors
By Robert Stacy McCain, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
They are Marxists, anti-Semites, terrorists, purveyors of crackpot
conspiracy theories – and they hold positions of lifetime tenure at
some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. These are some of
the campus figures profiled in David Horowitz’s new book, “The
Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.”
Himself a former radical in the 1960s’ “New Left,” Mr. Horowitz is
the president of the California-based Center for the Study of Popular
Culture and the founder of the Web site The
following are excerpts of an e-mail interview with Mr. Horowitz:
Question: What inspired you to write this book?
Answer: Twenty years in the trenches, speaking at universities and
seeing what the left had done to them. As my book shows, radicals
have colonized whole departments and fields at universities that are
both public and private, large and small, secular and religious and
turned into indoctrination and recruitment centers for the
anti-American left. My book features full professors who are
followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, members of the Central Committee
of the [U.S.] Communist Party, active and unrepentant terrorists,
anti-white racists and anti-Semites.
Q: Do most parents of college students – or most taxpayers, in the
case of state universities – know what they’re paying for at these
schools?
A: A friend of mine was the chairman of the board of trustees of a
major state university for 15 years. He said to me, “In all those
years I never knew what was going on in the classrooms at my
university.” I think he is typical. Even I didn’t realize quite how
bad it was until I wrote this book. I hope it will open people’s
eyes.
Q: I was surprised to find that Stanford University professor Paul
Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” was still teaching. Hasn’t
he been thoroughly discredited?
A: In the university in the social sciences and humanities, there is
no bottom line for bad ideas. In the real world, a Marxist would be
regarded as a flat-Earthist, yet in the university they occupy
positions as professors of history, political science and even (at
the University of Massachusetts) economists.
Q: Another mind-boggling example: Bernardine Dohrn, a former leader
of the violent Weather Underground. How can she be a law professor at
Northwestern University?
A: How can her husband and fellow-terrorist [Bill Ayers] be a
“Distinguished Professor of Early Childhood Education” at the
University of Illinois? The answer to both questions: Sympathizers
with their terrorist political agendas control the search and hiring
and tenure committees. There is really no other explanation.
Q: What are some of the other examples from the book that you found
particularly surprising?
A: Nothing surprises me after the research I did on this book. Hamid
Algar is a professor of Islamic studies at the University of
California at Berkeley. He is an ardent follower of the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Before 9/11 he gave a speech in Tehran at a memorial for
Khomeini in which he called for armed jihad against the West and for
the disappearing of Israel from the face of the Earth. He also told
Armenian students they deserved to be massacred. No administrative
action was taken against him.
Many professors profiled in my book express genocidal views towards
Israel, and one professor of ethnic studies at the University of
Texas has expressed the “scholarly” view that “we have got to
eliminate the gringo … we have got to kill him.”
Q: This is bound to be a very controversial book. What are some of
the criticisms you’ve had so far?
A: The academic leftists are really in an indefensible position, as
these quotations should make clear. So they have an incoherent
defense. Their first tack is to accuse the book of being a McCarthy
list, but in the next breath they are proclaiming how proud they are
to be on it. I happen to be the son of communist parents who were
blacklisted in the 1950s. I can tell you that they did not want to be
on any list.
These tenured radicals are in a very secure position and they know
it. Ward Churchill is still a $120,000-a-year professor at the
University of Colorado, while his president was forced to resign over
the scandal he created. What these people fear is not being fired;
it’s being embarrassed. And I hope their fears prove justified.
Q: Does the fact that people like Angela Davis and Ward Churchill can
become tenured professors argue in favor of the academic freedom
legislation you’ve supported in Colorado, Pennsylvania and other
states?
A: My academic freedom legislation is the beginning of a solution to
this problem. We need to take politics out of our classrooms at both
the university and the K-12 level. Before I go, I’d like to let your
readers know that I’ve created a Web site at
where they can follow the fun.

Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
March 10 2006
STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING

MARCH 10, 2006

SPEAKER: TOM CASEY,
STATE DEPARTMENT ACTING SPOKESMAN
[parts omitted]
QUESTION: Is the U.S. ambassador to Armenia having his time there cut
short, maybe his career?
QUESTION: A couple of congressmen have asked Secretary Rice about it;
apparently not got an answer.
He’s supposed to have suggested that the Armenians were the victims
of genocide, which doesn’t happen to be Bush administration policy.
CASEY: I think Sean addressed this a couple of days ago.
QUESTION: I think it’s been brought further up to date, if you
could…
CASEY: I don’t have anything beyond what he said on it. I’ll look
into it for you and see if there’s any change in the situation.
QUESTION: He said ambassadors serve at the privilege of the
president, or something.
CASEY: Yes, and as far as I know, he’s still at post and still
ambassador. I’m not aware that anything has changed that situation.
QUESTION: You can’t — well, all right, if you don’t have anything
further.
CASEY: I think I’ll look into it for you. I haven’t gotten an update
on it, but I’ll try and see if there’s something and we’ll post an
answer for you later.
QUESTION: And also, somebody ghosted an answer from the secretary to
Mr. Schiff and the other congressman.
CASEY: OK. I’ll let you know.
[the rest omitted]

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.

NBC4.TV, CA
March 10 2006
LA, Anaheim Raids Net 28 Alleged Gang Members
Most Of The Suspects Are Expected To Be Deported
POSTED: 12:57 pm PST March 10, 2006
LOS ANGELES — Raids in Los Angeles and Orange counties netted 28
suspected foreign-born gang members, most of whom will be deported,
authorities announced Friday.
The federal and local operation rounded up nine suspects in Los
Angeles and 19 in Anaheim, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officials.
Among those arrested in the Los Angeles area was a 40-year-old member
of the Armenian Power street gang, whose criminal record includes
past convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and elder abuse,
ICE reported.
Those arrested in Anaheim included a 20-year-old gang member
convicted of kidnapping for ranson and extortion. All 19 of the
Anaheim suspects are Mexican nationals.
Four of the gang members arrested during the Anaheim operation will
be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for re-entering the
United States after a deportation, a felony punishable by up to 20
years in prison.
Most of the suspects are expected to be deported, officials said.
“For years, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in conjunction with ICE, has
worked to take dangerous criminal aliens off the streets,” said U.S.
Attorney Debra Wong Yang. “Those who routinely flout American laws by
sneaking into the country and then committing crimes that often
impact members of their own ethnic group deserve to be punished.”
In San Diego County, Operation Community Shield rounded up 41
suspects, who also are to be deported.
The two-month enforcement effort that concluded yesterday was part of
Operation Community Shield, a joint operation involving ICE agents
and local law enforcement officers.
Operation Community Shield was launched nationwide in February 2005
after ICE officials targeted MS-13, one of the largest and most
violent street gangs in the country, and found that most of the gang
members were in the country illegally.
In May 2005, ICE expanded the operation to include all criminal
street gangs and prison gangs with foreign-born members, ICE
officials said.
The nationwide operation so far has netted 2,388 suspected street
gang members and associates, and the seizure of about 117 guns, the
federal agency reported.