AndyPandy wrote:What's he wittering about, can anyone translate, my eyes start to close at the 2nd paragraph.
Wet ink signature. That's the crux of the matter. He does constantly refer to himself as 'we' through the whole document, which I find quite unsettling. "We are an experienced IT technician", paraphrasing. Reminds me of the Spaniard videos when he keeps repeating Mort-gauge to the poor call centre staff.
Edit: you need to read the 6th paragraph. He talks about how his computer expertise allows him to recognise ink digital signature.
If they are so concerned about wet-ink signatures, they should consider this: even before I began having my paychecks direct-deposited into my bank account more than thirty years ago, I don't believe that I have EVER seen a paycheck or government check with a wet-ink signature. They are ALL computer--generated facsimiles of the signature of the corporate or government office responsible for distributing the checks.
If a wet-ink signature is so important to a document, presumably to assure that the signer actually did sign it, wouldn't the same principle apply to a check? I mean, how can I be legally sure that my employer really did pay me? How can I be sure that my tax refund check is real, if the Secretary of the Treasury, or at least the Comisioner of Internal Revenue didn't sit at a desk and personally sign all of those millions of refund checks?
If they are so concerned about wet-ink signatures, they should consider this: even before I began having my paychecks direct-deposited into my bank account more than thirty years ago, I don't believe that I have EVER seen a paycheck or government check with a wet-ink signature. They are ALL computer--generated facsimiles of the signature of the corporate or government office responsible for distributing the checks.
This concept is nothing new. The U.S. Constitution says that, after Congress passes a law, the President (generally) has to sign it before it takes effect. Way back when Thomas Jefferson was President (for you U.K. folks, that was 1801-1809), the Attorney General ruled that if a subordinate official used a "copperplate" (I don't know what that is; must have been some early version of a stamp-pad) to apply a facsimile of the President's signature, that was good enough, provided the president had authorized it.
As long as what is on the check or contract is what is authorized by the company or gov't that is all that is legally necessary, and a facsimile can be an authorized signature, so Baron Bonkers doesn't, as usual, know what he is going on about. At one point gov't bonds and stock certificates had to be signed manually, or at least the interpretation was that it was required, now it is all done with authorized facsimile signatures pre-printed on the certificates, with the actual registrar scrawling something to authenticate them, and even then I wouldn't bet on them manually signing them either anymore.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
If they are so concerned about wet-ink signatures, they should consider this: even before I began having my paychecks direct-deposited into my bank account more than thirty years ago, I don't believe that I have EVER seen a paycheck or government check with a wet-ink signature. They are ALL computer--generated facsimiles of the signature of the corporate or government office responsible for distributing the checks.
This concept is nothing new. The U.S. Constitution says that, after Congress passes a law, the President (generally) has to sign it before it takes effect. Way back when Thomas Jefferson was President (for you U.K. folks, that was 1801-1809), the Attorney General ruled that if a subordinate official used a "copperplate" (I don't know what that is; must have been some early version of a stamp-pad) to apply a facsimile of the President's signature, that was good enough, provided the president had authorized it.
I believe that it was a sheet of copper into which the President's signature, in reverse, was engraved. Wipe ink onto the plate, and the ink remains inside the engraved portion of the plate; so just put the plate into a custom printing press, then press the plate against the document, and presto! The signature is on the document.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
He rants for four pages about how wet ink seals are critical to the validity of any document, then doesn't include one on his own document. Or any of his documents that I can think of.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of minds littler than the Baron's, I suppose.
I believe their weasel argument would mean that someone can only sign it in front of them for alleged authentication - hence the only time the ink would be wet. I use 'alleged' because you know the goal post would be moved it this were to happen.
TheNewSaint wrote:It would be just like them to demand an ink signature, be shown one, and then say "how do I know this is really your signature?"
Way back when I was a baby lawyer, we had a preposterous rule in New York about "exemplified signatures." If you needed to present an affidavit to a New York court that was signed outside of New York, the signer would sign the affidavit before a Notary in his home state; the Notary would affix her notarial seal; then you would have to get the clerk of the local court to affix a declaration saying that the notary was really a notary of that state; and you would finally need a judge of that state's court to affix a certificate saying the court clerk was really the court clerk. It took forever to accomplish and was utterly pointless.
It used to be in Scotland that each page had to be signed by writing "adopted as holograph" followed by your signature. Sounds 17th century, but we had to sign our first tenancy in 1984 in that way on each page.
If they are so concerned about wet-ink signatures, they should consider this: even before I began having my paychecks direct-deposited into my bank account more than thirty years ago, I don't believe that I have EVER seen a paycheck or government check with a wet-ink signature. They are ALL computer--generated facsimiles of the signature of the corporate or government office responsible for distributing the checks.
This concept is nothing new. The U.S. Constitution says that, after Congress passes a law, the President (generally) has to sign it before it takes effect. Way back when Thomas Jefferson was President (for you U.K. folks, that was 1801-1809), the Attorney General ruled that if a subordinate official used a "copperplate" (I don't know what that is; must have been some early version of a stamp-pad) to apply a facsimile of the President's signature, that was good enough, provided the president had authorized it.
My point was that you never hear the crazies complain that their government welfare check does not have a wet-ink signature. If they were so crucial to the validity of a document, wouldn't that mean that their checks were invalid, also? I am perfectly aware that a wet-ink signature is not a requirement. I was being sarcastic.
TheNewSaint wrote:It would be just like them to demand an ink signature, be shown one, and then say "how do I know this is really your signature?"
Its simple. You simply sign an affidavit that the signature on the document is yours.
Yes, but how do I know that you are who you claim to be? Do you have any wet ink evidence of your identity?
Come up with that, and I'll give the ol' goalposts another shove....
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Modern counter-example: Just this week, I had to sign a legal waiver pertaining to the estate of a deceased relative. The executor emailed me a PDF file. I printed it out, signed it, scanned the signed version to a new PDF file, and emailed that file back. Then I took the original document with the wet ink signature and threw it away, as it served no further purpose.
It struck me that the hand-signed original was actually the least important thing. It was a by-product. If the signed PDF file gets lost, I can easily print/sign/scan another one. Which will probably be added to an electronic file repository, and never again exist in physical form. No one could ever produce the original document, because there never was one.
Original documents and physical signatures are obsolete ideas. For almost all purposes, electronic versions of both are legally acceptable.
TheNewSaint wrote:Modern counter-example: Just this week, I had to sign a legal waiver pertaining to the estate of a deceased relative. The executor emailed me a PDF file. I printed it out, signed it, scanned the signed version to a new PDF file, and emailed that file back. Then I took the original document with the wet ink signature and threw it away, as it served no further purpose.
It struck me that the hand-signed original was actually the least important thing. It was a by-product. If the signed PDF file gets lost, I can easily print/sign/scan another one. Which will probably be added to an electronic file repository, and never again exist in physical form. No one could ever produce the original document, because there never was one.
Original documents and physical signatures are obsolete ideas. For almost all purposes, electronic versions of both are legally acceptable.
Would it not have been simpler to insert a digital copy of your signature into the original document?
-=Firthy2002=-
Watching idiots dig themselves into holes since 2016.
aesmith wrote:It used to be in Scotland that each page had to be signed by writing "adopted as holograph" followed by your signature. Sounds 17th century, but we had to sign our first tenancy in 1984 in that way on each page.
I guess that was just meant to excuse the lack of a (wax?) seal on the document, but I would just about kill a man to find out what the Sovcit interpretation of that phrase would be.
As for the Baron's letter, I think the best approach was once described by James Thurber:
My worst personal experience ... was when I read, or tried to read, a manuscript dealing with the confused whimsies of the Shoshone Indians. Its author sent a letter with it that began: "I have lived among the Shoshones for twenty years, and have thought for some time that their humor, which consists mainly of heavy banter, would be a valuable contribution to American folklore. In some instances, as in the case of OGLA WAHGU, which is not easily rendered into English, I have made no attempt at translation. OGLA WAHGU means, variously, 'not for me,' and 'I am going,' and, more rarely, 'strook him' " My secretary returned the manuscript with a polite letter saying that I had died.
Chief Constable Byrne should take note of this option.
TheNewSaint wrote:It would be just like them to demand an ink signature, be shown one, and then say "how do I know this is really your signature?"
Its simple. You simply sign an affidavit that the signature on the document is yours.
Yes, but how do I know that you are who you claim to be? Do you have any wet ink evidence of your identity?
Come up with that, and I'll give the ol' goalposts another shove....
Its worse than that. How do I know that *I* am who I claim I am. I may be completely deluded. Perhaps I am not really P*** N****, but rather Donald Trump.
TheNewSaint wrote:Modern counter-example: Just this week, I had to sign a legal waiver pertaining to the estate of a deceased relative. The executor emailed me a PDF file. I printed it out, signed it, scanned the signed version to a new PDF file, and emailed that file back. Then I took the original document with the wet ink signature and threw it away, as it served no further purpose.
It struck me that the hand-signed original was actually the least important thing. It was a by-product. If the signed PDF file gets lost, I can easily print/sign/scan another one. Which will probably be added to an electronic file repository, and never again exist in physical form. No one could ever produce the original document, because there never was one.
Original documents and physical signatures are obsolete ideas. For almost all purposes, electronic versions of both are legally acceptable.
IANAL, but wouldn't such an image be considered prima facie evidence of agreement to the terms of the document? That is, there would be a rebuttable asumption that the signature is genuine. The burden or proof would be on the person challenging the authenticity.
That is, there would be a rebuttable asumption that the signature is genuine. The burden or proof would be on the person challenging the authenticity.
There's no one answer to that question (who has the burden of proof of the genuineness of a signature). It varies by state in the U.S.; within one state, there may be different rules for, say, checks and wills. Certain kinds of documents are not just signed but also notarized, because notarization creates a near-irrebuttable presumption of validity.
Of course, in most cases, there is no dispute about the genuineness of signatures-- the parties have typically been negotiating for a while, leaving all sorts of records. And the genuineness of a signature can usually be proven quite easily-- for example, the law permits a finding of genuineness based on comparison with another example of the same person's signature.
