Skip to comments.Carla Sauer Iyer Affidavit - FAKE??
Posted on 03/21/2005 11:54:31 AM PST by BB62
I passed along the affidavit which many of us have seen, presumably by Carla Sauer Iyer. Is it FAKE or real??
My sister, a notary public (not in FL), came back with the following:
"Please do not believe everything you read. This supposed notarized document is not legal it is missing the county in which the notary resides, along with her name printed, typed or stamped beneath her signature. In addition, there is no record of a Patricia Anderson with that commission number listed with the state of Florida. In other words, like most of the stuff you get via email, IT IS A HOAX designed to get you to believe something that is completely fabricated. I hope you forward this information to the same people to whom you sent the original email."
Forgive my unsureness with posting. I hope I have put things in the right place in this post.
So... I throw open the subject to those more knowledgeable than I - is it fake? One thing I noticed and questioned, even before receiving my sister's e-mail, was the neither the "did/did not" was circled at the end of the document. I found that very strange.
bump to get this answered
So, why would this document be faked?
Who benefits (1) if it is believed to be real?
Who benefits, (2) if it is proved to be faked?
"So, why would this document be faked?"
We can speculate on the MANY, many reasons, but that is not the point of my post.
Very simply, I am asking for those more knowledgeable than I to assess the document - not unlike the See BS news documents.
I'd sure appreciate any input on the matter.
"So, with all that was made of memogate, I would hope that he has had it authenticated before its airing."
I would hope so too, but I would sure feel more comfortable if we could put it under the collective eye.
I can't comment on your sister's observations but I did download the pdf file from the provided link and zoomed in on the notary's seal which has an imprinted date of December 12, 2003.
Since the affiant's appearance is dated August 29, 2003 there appears to be something amiss here, too say the least.
After reading your post, I did the same and it appears the December 12 date is an experation date.
Please disregard first reply. I read the date before reading the text. Muy Bad.
That isn't an issue... the notary's commission expires in December 2003. They usually are good for a year or two, so this makes perfect sense. I can't make out the notary's commission number, but there is a site where you can look up the notaries, and there are a number of Patricia Anderson's listed.
Maybe you can help me with posting this to a wider audience - and asking for input to verify authenticity.
This is only about my fifth post to FR - how and where should I post it to get maximum exposure/input?
Patricia Anderson is or was an attorney working for the Schlinder family. It is quite possible she is also a notary.
"That isn't an issue... the notary's commission expires in December 2003. They usually are good for a year or two, so this makes perfect sense. I can't make out the notary's commission number, but there is a site where you can look up the notaries, and there are a number of Patricia Anderson's listed."
I found such a site, but there is no Patricia Anderson with a matching commission #! Add to that my sister's other points "it is missing the county in which the notary resides, along with her name printed, typed or stamped beneath her signature" and I am really wondering.
Of course, I would like to stuff it back in her face (since she's a know it all anyway!) - but she has good points I am unable to respond to.
And then there is the uncircled "did/did not" that I noticed...
"Patricia Anderson is or was an attorney working for the Schlinder family. It is quite possible she is also a notary."
Two questions - 1) how do you know that, and 2) why aren't the elements my sister noted (and I - the "did/did not") present?
If she was an attorney, isn't there a law firm name usually listed?
It bothers me too that there is no printed name for Patricia Anderson on the affidavit, except for what might be a difficult to read seal.
Patricia Anderson was the attorney who represented the Schindlers for years. It's not a stretch that she would also be a notary.
Back again, this time with something useful, I Hope.
Patricia Anderson is/was the Schindler's lawyer according to this link - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34175
It's my understanding that lawyers are notaries also.
Sorry for duplicate info! LOL
If you access any old articles from 2003 about Terri, the last time they attempted to dehydrate her, she should be mentioned. Those of us who have followed the case closely all this time will remember her. Maybe if you go to www.terrisfight.org you will see other documents bearing her name as the attorney?
"Patricia Anderson was the attorney who represented the Schindlers for years. It's not a stretch that she would also be a notary."
Okay, let's accept that that is the case.
A few questions:
1) Is there somewhere that references her?
2) Why doesn't the notary # appear when a search is done at the Florida Dept of State?
3) Why is there no name below Patricia Anderson's signature, as required by Florida statute?
See this site : http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/education/faq/index.html
And this question "When notarizing a signature, what elements must be included in my notarial certificate?"
The county and state do appear (I just caught it) at the top of the document.
Here is the info. on the attorney -
PATRICIA FIELDS ANDERSON, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 352871
447 THIRD AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 405
ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 895-6505; Fax: (727) 898-4903
I realize the Middle initial is different - but (I am a notary also) it could be her Maiden name is "Fields" and her given middle name is the J.
I found her notary seal on several documents in the case - several from health care providers of Terri.
I believe it is legit - it has been posted over 100 times on various sites (Including ABC News ) which isn't a friend of Terri.... I doubt they would print this if it were a hoax.... Easy enough to look up the legal documents if you have access to Legal site software.....
Okay, okay - NOW this is really going somewhere!
I would really like to nail down the problem with the notary number (comission #?) on the document though. Why can't I confirm it?
I thought that some commissions never expired (like those of attorneys?), but the one on the supposed document has an expiration date.
Commission # - how about it? Can anyone explain that?
It may be a minor point, but the lack of a name (and whether an oath was taken) really bothers me too - an attorney should know better - don't you agree?
We have our own Memogate here.
We've been Ratherized bigtime in this case...
I'm waiting for some FReeper to tell me: "Courage."
We can probably count on a LOT of phony documents like this showing up in this case as it draws to a close.
Next week, there will be a whole big s-load of congresscritters running for cover as more of this gets out, and the polls keep coming in.
The GOP has a huge black eye because of this. And the Hildebeast is grinning like a cat with canary feathers on its chin.
And the signatures should have been on a separate page.
And the notary stamp is required to be stamped OVER the notary's name, not under the "Commission expires" date, which, as I am sure you noticed, is missing.
All notary seals have the county in which they are issued on them; it's required by law.
The law frowns on people notarazing documents that they have a "vested" interest in; I surely hope she didn't.
Anyway, if she did, I'd fire her just on the basis of that "legal document."
If so, then the folks who pushed the GOP into this need to pay one HELL of a price. As in, they NEED to get shut out.
I might add that if the attorney DID notarize it, which she shouldn't have, she should have put her "Esq." on it to indicate who she was.
It could be true for all I know.
I'm reading between lines on all of this. I don't really need to read anything. I could not personally kill her.
But do the ends justify the means?
You can write a vanity post, but that isn't generally a good idea. If you don't have good sources for your information, it's best not to start a new thread on it.
But I don't run this place. Lucky for that.
There are deceptions in war all the time to save lives, so they could possibly be morally condoned.
Generally, I don't like to be deceived, and once I find out I have been, it prejudices my opinion from thenceforth.
Not so....it depends on the state. In SC you do not need to put the seal over the name and the seal does not have the county name on it.
Someone from Florida might have a good idea how to tell with this...
I've certainly never seen it that way. I've seen a space for the stamp, but I have never seen one with a county on it.
Both Rush and Foxnews have quoted from this.
I've asked two or three posters for links to the origianl document. Funny thing, nothing came back. Imagine that! LOL
"I believe it is legit - it has been posted over 100 times on various sites (Including ABC News ) which isn't a friend of Terri.... I doubt they would print this if it were a hoax.... Easy enough to look up the legal documents if you have access to Legal site software....."
I believe you are right, but do you happen to have a link to another example of her notarization?
Now, if what someone else said is right - that you can't notarize something which you have an interest in - that is troubling...
There are 23 Patricia Anderson's listed. A google search of Pat Anderson and Schiavo will bring up many references.
Thomas Brodersen notarized the Heidi Law deposition and
Bob Roberts notarized Trudy Capone's affidavit which can be found here: http://www.zimp.org/stuff/nav.htm
"Anyway, if she did, I'd fire her just on the basis of that "legal document."
Anyone know if Dan Rather vetted this before it was offered up on FR? He's really quite good at such things? LOL
In post #25 you said just the opposite "All notary seals have the county in which they are issued on them; it's required by law."
She has every right to be grinning, I would too, if I were in her situation. All the work that's been done and NOW they've given her an arsenal.
BTW, I guess if I pointed out that the person who wrote this email said the same thing, you'd take offense at that, too, right?
I was just pointing out that you stated it both ways...NOT REQUIRED in post #25 and REQUIRED in post #35.
Er, did you not understand that I changed my statement AFTER I saw what you said?
I didn't make a big deal out of it; I just took your word for it.
For some reason YOU need to make a point out of it, so carry on.
I am working on a large post, based on all the information give me here - THANKS!
A few things really trouble me, though.
1) How about a web site that is not a no name site with document pdfs? The http://www.zimp.org/stuff/nav.htm site could be BS. (I don't think so, but still...)
2) Why would an attorney, and attorneys are sticklers for detail, IMHO, not have put her typed name on the document? Sloppy work, if you ask me.
3) Further to my stickler point, why weren't one of the "did/did not" oath choices circled? Again, sloppy.
I want this document to be real, but I think it only fair to apply the same level of scrutiny to it as was applied to Dan "See BS" Rather's "proof".
Like everything else in this society, standards for documents have deteriorated at some times, probably happens all the time. A technicality wouldn't necessarily invalidate as far as I am concerned, probably should legally, but I still am not sold on it, shouldn't even say I would like it to be true. If it is true, it makes the husband look worse than my impression of him if the document never came into it.
Human nature being what it is, I would not be surprised at people feeling like that in ordeals that go on and on.
I've followed this case from the beginning, not as intensely as some dedicated people on here, and my mind is up, and I don't want to look at any more documents or web pages.
I've discussed other controversial issues until I'm practically blue in the face, and people are intractable. They very seldom can be persuaded. They just dig in and defend their positions all the more stubbornly.
I hope she gets a fair shake by the judge now.
Personally, there are some aspects of this I took for granted before. Someone mentioned living wills/advance directives are a form of assisted suicide, and I had never thought of that. Off topic for what you are trying to do.
Welcome. I welcome you more if you are on Terri's side, possible faked documents and misinformation on either side notwithstanding.
The questions I raised in my post # 45 still stand unanswered. Those things seem strange, unnerving.
HOWEVER, because of everyone's help here (THANK YOU LOADS!)I can make the following statements:
1) The state and county is listed on the top of the first page - this seems to be standard practice in FL. http://www.zimp.org/stuff/ . Also, see the Stephen Wise affidavit at http://terrisfight.org/ .
2) Patricia Anderson was the attorney for the Schindler's, as referenced in this article (among others) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34175
PATRICIA FIELDS ANDERSON, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 352871
447 THIRD AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 405
ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 895-6505; Fax: (727) 898-4903
3) There IS a Patricia Anderson listed as a notary public in FL, with a different commission #. Suspicious? NO. Here you can look her up: http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/ If you go directly to this page, http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=12714 you will note that the name matches the above, and that the issue date is the day after the expiration date of the seal on the document which started this all. You may have noted that the middle initial is different than what is on the document. This can be easily explained by the fact that some (liberated?) women use their maiden name as their middle initial.
4) For whatever reason, a different commission number is used on the latest Patricia Anderson commission. The best I can tell, the "CC" series denotes a set of issue or expiration years. The DD series are the most recent commissions issued.
For whatever reason, the attorney's printed, stamped or typed name below her signature is not present, except as contained in the notary seal. This is sloppy work for an attorney, **at least in my state** - but in FL, things may be different: http://www.zimp.org/stuff/ (look at the Heidi Law #23 affidavit for similarity purposes). You can also examine the court documents at http://terrisfight.org/ for examples of diversity in affidavits.
The document is legal as best I can tell, but it is definitively NOT a hoax for the reasons my sister proffered.
NOW - how about the remaining inconsistencies?
Just had to, it was way too tempting. ;)
Just what is a "vanity posting", and how does one post one?
To answer your question from another post, I am very much on Terri's side.
The wait while the Federal judge "reviews" the matter makes me sick to my stomach. I am greatly angered and distressed by this ridiculous wait. There is NO EXCUSE in my mind why he has not put a TRO in place while he studies the matter.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned - Terri dies while Judge Whittemore "studies". Sickening.
If anyone has any suggestions as to where I can productively vent my anger, let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.