The Institute of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill publishes the Notary Public Guidebook for North Carolina. This book sets forth the laws, practices and forms essential to the office of Notary Public. Notaries Public are asked if they have the current edition before taking the oath of office.
On page 90 of the eighth edition, it says: "A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person's religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc."
If a Notary Public follows the directives applicable to the office of Notary Public, some documents furnished to a court under oath, such as affidavits, will not follow the rule that Judge Albright applies to oaths taken in court. If a Notary Public follows Judge Albright's rule, some documents will not have been sworn as provided in the directives applicable to the office of Notary Public. Either way, this controversy has created a minefield for out-of-court takers of oaths.
David Polinsky
Greensboro
Comments (8)
Why not just hook 'em up to a polygraph on the witness stand? One lie, you die. (that skinny thang that holds the scales would crap her gown!)
Posted by steve | July 9, 2005 7:05 AM
David, thank you for pointing this out. It seems so silly that in this day and time our courts would remain so backwards. Also noted: Federal courts do not require the use of any "holy scriptures" allowing witnesses and defendants to swear only to tell the truth. It appears that our state and local judges are too cowardly to require the same.
Posted by Billy The Blogging Poet | July 9, 2005 7:56 PM
I should have said "some of our judges" as not to imply all.
Posted by Billy The Blogging Poet | July 9, 2005 7:58 PM
Disclaimer: I know the writer very well but didn't know he posted this letter till I saw it here.
Interesting point: I talked to a big-city lawyer who does criminal stuff and he said, astonished, "They swear ON THE BIBLE there?" (there=here). Then he added, "I've never seen that in my life."
Note that the lawyer is older than 50.
We need to get rid of "The Bible" as the predominant way we "swear in" oath-takers in courtrooms. Affirming seems to be the way of the court world. It's much easier and avoids all of this stuff that puts Greensbor/GC on the wrong side of the map in being in step with the country.
Posted by Sue | July 10, 2005 8:07 AM
In our courts witnesses have always had the option of either swearing on the Christian bible or affirming by raising the hand. Why change? It's worked fine this way for decades.
Posted by Ralph | July 10, 2005 10:03 AM
To Billy the Poet:
Witnesses in our local/state courts are NOT required to swear on a bible. as Ralph said before me, anyone may affirm to tell the truth just by raising his hand and saying so. I've seen this in our courts since the 1970's.
Posted by John | July 10, 2005 11:02 AM
Your wife has been mean to me . . .
Posted by steve | July 10, 2005 11:59 AM
In WA, you can give the oath with "under God" as optional. No bible/koran needed.
Posted by mobile-notary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2006 2:13 PM