Reacting to the news, BJP Mahila Morcha president Smriti Irani: “Sanjiv Bhat’s so called fight has been exposed, it wasn’t a legal fight, was politics. He was fighting on behalf of Congress.”

Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said: “Congress is exposed thoroughly today. In the last 10 years, they carried out a hate campaign…They defamed Gujarat to the hilt. And Sanjiv Bhatt became a major pawn in the hands of Congress.”

By fielding Bhatt’s wife Shweta in the Gujarat Assembly Elections, he said, “It is clear today which forces are working behind Sanjiv Bhatt, after his wife became a Congress candidate.”

Javadekar said whatever Bhatt did in last 10 years, the “whole architect, script writers and directors were the Congress”.

“It was Congress-sponsored hate campaign to defame Gujarat and Gujarati voters will definitely teach a bitter lesson to Congress,” he said.

Sanjiv Bhatt, who is at loggerheads with Modi, in an affidavit in the Supreme Court last year had alleged complicity on the part of the Gujarat CM in the 2002 riots. He also deposed against Modi before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots.

Bhatt, who was the Principal, SRP Training School, was later suspended by the state government.

Gender: male

Date of imprisonment: May 1937

Camps of imprisonment:

Mojo, Ethiopia, May – August 1937

Akaki Radio Station, Akaki, Etiopia, August – November 1937

Dejazmach Oube’s Residence, Addis Abeba Ethiopia November 1937 – December 1938

Source: Command of his Imperial Majesty (Ed.), 1950, Documents on Italian War Crimes submitted to the United Nations War Crimes Commission by the Imperial Ethiopian Government, Vol. 2: Affidavits and published documents, Addis Abeba: Ministry of Justice, p. 17: Extract from Affidavit No. 10

Note: The affidavits were collected after the war from many parts of Ethiopia and each was sworn before a judge or magistrate or public official. In cases where the witness was illiterate his deposition was written down in Amharic and then read over to him before the Judge or official appointed for the purpose. English translations were prepared for submission to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and these have since been revised and checked with the originals for publication.

I, the undersigned, name: Blatta Haile Wolde Kidan, age: 50 years, profession: President of the Land Court, address: Ministry of Interior, Addis Ababa, do hereby take oath and say as follows: [...]

(7) In Ginbot, 1929 (May 1937), while I was still in my house at Chafe Donsa, 300 Italian soldiers surrounded my house and arrested me. From there they took me to Moggio. When I arrived at Moggio I was put in a little hut among eighty prisoners in a room which measured 3 by 5 metres [roughly 10 feet by 16 feet]. The conditions were horrible and stifling. Afterwards they brought other prisoners and put them among us, and for this reason we used to stand on one another. When a prisoner died, his body used to he kept for three or four days in the prison. Because of the noxious insects which prevailed in the prison the conditions were terrible. The number of deaths in this prison daily was higher than those who were murdered by the Italians.

(8) In the month of Hamle, 1929 (July 1937), the Italians brought monks, nuns, aged deacons and feeble persons by donkey from Zuquala to Moggio. There they were put in an enclosure near the river without shelter from the rain and on marshy ground. For this reason many of them died from sickness, and the rest were shot.

(9) In the same year in the month of Nahase (August 1937) we were brought to Addis Ababa and put in the former wireless station. This place was marshy black soil and we used to sleep on the swamp. Many prisoners died from this cause. Three hundred persons died while I was there.

(10) While I was still in this prison at the end of Nahase I saw a man whom I did not know before thrashed by the Italians, and his body was covered with wounds. They used to torture him, by pinching a piece of his flesh from the wound and they said to him: “You know where Shaka Balihu is, so tell us the truth.” When they could not get anything out of him in the end they murdered him.

(11) In Hedar, 1930 (November 1937). I was taken from the wireless station prison and was brought to the prison which was situated in Dejazmach Oube’s compound. This prison was badly infected by insanitary condition, and was unhealthy to live in. More than this, they provided us with a tin to be used as a latrine in the living house, so the stinking of this was most terrible and detrimental to our morale. Furthermore, when this tin was filled the Italians used to ignore it. Then we were ordered to take this tin out each morning in turn when it was overflowing. I stayed in this prison up to Tahasas, 1931 (December 1938).

Whilst I was there very many people died from illness and the conditions caused by the overcrowding of the prison.

Courtesy of www.campifascisti.it

Foreclosure Hamlet website:

174 Lower County Road Dennis Port MA Auction date: November 30, 2012 @ 2 PM.

AND THE WINNER IS:

FOR BEST FRAUDULENT NOTE AFFIDAVIT (POST EATON) DRAFTING AND RECORDING IN A REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN MASSACHUSETTS:

Partridge, Snow, and Hahn LLP out of Warwick, Rhode Island.

We would like to send our sincerest congratulations to the law firm, for their creation of this one of a kind document.

Only the best could come up with this work of art.  What’s even more scary is that this even got RECORDED!!!

On Page 2 we have:

New Haven County ( that’s Connecticut for you Southerner’s) in State/Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and notary stamp is again, Connecticut.  Let’s break it down.

Partridge, Snow, and Hahn LLP is in Rhode Island… they are using a clearly stated Mass. form, which was notarized in Connecticut, and sworn to by an Atty in Rhode Island.  That’s 3 states.  For a property in Barnstable County,  MA.

How DO they do it??!!   I don’t think the Supreme Court Justices of Massachusetts would find this amusing.  Not in the least.

Again… if you are going to create fraudulent documents to steal people’s houses, could you at least try to make them at least “correctly fraudulent”??  And we thought Harmon Law was bad….

To think this document was signed under the penalty of perjury…AMAZING.

Sanctions? Disbarred?

Gender: male

Date of imprisonment: 19 February 1937

Camps of imprisonment:

Caserma dei Carabinieri, Ethiopia, 19.-22. Febbruary 1937

Source: Command of his Imperial Majesty (Ed.), 1950, Documents on Italian War Crimes submitted to the United Nations War Crimes Commission by the Imperial Ethiopian Government, Vol. 2: Affidavits and published documents, Addis Abeba: Ministry of Justice, p. 14-15: Extract from Affidavit No. 10

Note: The affidavits were collected after the war from many parts of Ethiopia and each was sworn before a judge or magistrate or public official. In cases where the witness was illiterate his deposition was written down in Amharic and then read over to him before the Judge or official appointed for the purpose. English translations were prepared for submission to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and these have since been revised and checked with the originals for publication.

I, the undersigned, name: Blatta David Oqbazqui, age: 40 years, profession: Ex-Governor of Adua, President of the Ethiopico-Eritrean Unity Association, Addis Ababa, do hereby take oath and say as follows […]

(9) Then in 1937 on the 19^th of February I was in Addis Ababa. I was just going home at 12 o’clock when a carabiniere got hold of me and asked me where I was going. I told him that I was going home. He took me to the carabinieri station. As I passed through the streets I noticed that there was some disorder. People were running up and down and troops were moving, especially the fascists. I was examined at the station and was asked if I had been at the Palace in the morning. Then they told me to get out into the compound. There I found about a thousand people. This was close to Ras Makonnen Bridge, where the Police Station No. 2 is nowadays. Then the same day people were brought in lorries; they were taken without distinction and most of them were bleeding from hits. The fascists used to throw them down from the lorries. Some of them rolled down to the river, because they were thrown from the lorries, and these the Italians shot in front of us. All houses and tukuls, which were in front of us, were burning. Next day, while I was still in that compound, the burning of houses continued and more people were brought to our compound. In the evening, however, the commander said he could not receive any more people: there was no room for more. On Saturday they also took away the corpses of the persons they had killed on Friday in the river. There were about ten. Some Greeks and Armenians who had found Ethiopian babies coming from the burning houses came to our compound with these children to ask if their mothers were there. I especially remember one case when an Armenian carried a little baby in her arms, asking for the mother. She was allowed to come to us with the baby and went around in the crying crowd (most of them were injured) and tried to find the mother. One woman took care of the child. Whether it was the mother or not, I do not know. At first we were about a thousand, and now we were so many we could nut move. For three days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, we were not given any food, nor any water.

On Sunday evening we heard the Italians saying that an order had come from Italy to stop the massacre, and about 6.30 they released a part of us. Those who were without identity cards were still kept there and we were told later that a good number of them died from thirst and hunger. We who were released got a piece of bread and a little water when we left the place. When I went home houses were still burning and in two cases I noticed that people had been burnt in the houses. I made a special investigation on Monday to be sure that they were burnt and not shot.

When we were in the compound, I understood from the talk of the Carabinieri and the ascaris that Graziani himself had given the order for the massacre. I had learnt Italian for five years at school. (…) Very few Ethiopians stayed in Addis Ababa. Very many had also been sent to Italy, and the rest to Danane.

Courtesy of www.campifascisti.it

Majority of hearings among local courts including quasi-judicial proceedings can now dispense of direct testimony and instead admit signed affidavits as evidence in litigation of cases based on the Judicial Affidavit Rule which the Supreme Court (SC) en banc unanimously approved yesterday.
The scheme which was pilot-tested in Quezon City is expected to cut trial time by as much as half.
The approval for the new rule was done with the Tribunal in full attendance during the en banc session, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva said.
The SC has lately been reported to be affected by divisions as a result of the recent appointment by President Aquino of junior Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno as chief magistrate.
Villanueva said that the seven-page, 12-section Judicial Affidavit Rule was adopted upon the

recommendation of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, who is the chairman of the SC committee on the revision of the rules of court and Associate Justice Roberto Abad, who is the head of the sub-committee on the revision of the rules on civil procedures.
Among others, the salient features of the new rule are it applies to first-level courts, second-level courts, including the appellate courts, as well as quasi-judicial courts and special proceedings cases subject to the approval of the Court; submission of judicial affidavits should be done not later than five days prior to the scheduled hearing and attached thereto should be documentary evidence, including the name of the witness, the name of the lawyer who took the testimony of the witness in the affidavit conscious that he is under oath, questions and answers should be numbered consecutively; requirement for the attestation to be done by the lawyer; for purposes of direct-examination, there is the right to cross-examine the judicial affidavit; and it is also applicable to criminal cases where the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed six years where the accused agrees to the use of the judicial affidavit irrespective of the penalty involved and with respect to the civil aspect of the actions whatever penalty is involved.
Villanueva said the rule will take effect on Jan. 1 next year after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before Sept. 15.
The rule, while approved during the term of Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, was pilot tested in Quezon City since April, during the term of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Under the rule, witnesses can submit sworn statements in question-and-answer form in place of appearing before the court for a direct testimony.
The affidavit will contain the name of witness, the lawyer who took the testimony, and a statement that the witness answered the questions under oath and that he may be held criminally liable for false testimony or perjury.
Villanueva said the presentation of witnesses consumes 50 percent of trial time in an ordinary court and the rule will speed up trial by proceeding directly with the cross-examination of witnesses.
If a party does not submit a judicial affidavit, it may be considered a waiver on his part. Delayed submission is allowed if the delay is justifiable, but with a fine of P1,000 to P5,000.

DawnNews quoted an additional secretary of the ECP as saying that the decision to extend the deadline was made on the request of the parliament.— File Photo by Dawn

ISLAMABAD: Upon the request of the parliamentarians, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday extended the deadline for submission of declarations by lawmakers  that they did not hold dual citizenship until Nov 30, DawnNews reported.

DawnNews quoted Additional Secretary of the ECP Mohammad Afzal Khan as saying that the decision to extend the deadline was made on the request of the members of the parliament.

Khan further said that the by-election for PS-21 in Sindh, which was scheduled for Nov 17,  was postponed to Dec 4 on account of Muharram.

According to sources in the ECP, there were 212 lawmakers, including some leading politicians of the PPP, MQM and the opposition’s PML-N, who did not submit the affidavit by Nov 9, the deadline that had been set by the ECP after the Supreme Court’s verdict in the dual nationality case.

Besides this, the ECP was also to  decide about affidavits submitted by dozens of lawmakers without the required attestation.

Those who had failed to submit the affidavits include 75 members of the National Assembly and 29 senators. Besides, there are 76 members from the provincial assembly of Sindh, 24 of Punjab, seven of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and one of Balochistan who had yet to file the declarations.

The ECP, through a letter on Oct 9, had asked MPs and provincial lawmakers to submit within one month declarations which should be attested by oath commissioners to affirm that they did not posses dual nationality, warning that those failing to submit the affidavit on oath would be considered dual nationals and action could be initiated against them.

The apex court, disqualifying 11 legislators on Sept 20 for holding dual nationalities, had directed the ECP to obtain fresh declarations on oath from all legislators to examine their cases individually.

Those who have defied the ECP directive include 75 members of the National Assembly and 29 senators. — File photo

ISLAMABAD: A crucial two-day meeting of the Election Commission of Pakistan will begin here on Monday to decide the fate of over 200 lawmakers, including Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who have not yet submitted declarations that they do not hold dual nationality. The deadline for submitting the affidavit expired last week.

When contacted, an ECP official confirmed that the issue was on the agenda of the meeting which would also discuss and review arrangements for general elections.

Besides this, the ECP will also decide about affidavits submitted by dozens of lawmakers without the required attestation.

According to sources in the ECP, there are 212 lawmakers, including some leading politicians of the PPP and MQM, who did not submit the affidavit by Nov 9, the deadline set by the ECP on the basis of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the dual nationality case.

Those who have defied the ECP directive include 75 members of the National Assembly and 29 senators. Besides, there are 76 members from the provincial assembly of Sindh, 24 of Punjab, seven of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and one of Balochistan who have not filed declarations.

The ECP, through a letter on Oct 9, had asked MPs and provincial lawmakers to submit within one month declarations which should be attested by oath commissioners to affirm that they did not posses dual nationality.

Besides Prime Minister Raja Pervez, prominent among those who have so far not filed affidavits are Punjab PPP President Manzoor Wattoo, Leader of the House in Senate Jahangir Badr, Senator Raza Rabbani, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Makhdoom Shahabuddin, Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, Nazar Gondal, Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Syed Khursheed Shah, Defence Minister Syed Naveed Qamar and JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman.

Similarly, Minister for Overseas Pakistanis Dr Farooq Sattar, Haider Abbas Rizvi, Khush Bakht Shujaat, Babar Ghouri, Mustafa Kamal, Tahir Mashhadi and Nasreen Jalil are among the MQM lawmakers who have not filed their declarations.

The ECP had warned in its letter that those failing to submit the affidavit on oath would be considered dual nationals and action could be initiated against them.

The Supreme Court has already disqualified about a dozen lawmakers for possessing dual nationality.

Sources said that a list of the lawmakers who had submitted affidavits without attestation included Leader of Opposition in the Senate Ishaq Dar, Raja Zafarul Haq, Sardar Zulfikar Khosa, M. Hamza, Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Pervaiz Rashid, Chief Whip of PPP in the Senate Islamuddin Sheikh, Hasil Bijenjo of National Party, Dr Attiya Inayatullah, Minister of State for Information Sumsam Bokhari, former minister of state Tasnim Ahmad Qureshi, former defence minister Aftab Shaabaan Mirani, Bushra Gohar, Bushra Rehman, Yasmin Rehman, Chaudhry Barjees Tahir, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Noor Alam Khan, Hanif Abbasi, Ayatullah Durrani, Nawab Yousuf Talpur and Noorul Haq Qadri.

The ECP sources said that in the two-day meeting, officials of Nadra, Printing Corporation of Pakistan and other departments concerned would brief the commission on arrangements being made for the general elections likely to be held in March next year.

CCF: Uniform Counsel Certification

MPC 200: General Probate Petition

MPC 210: Petition for Sale of Real Estate

MPC 250: Petition for Approval of Compromise

MPC 260: Representation of Insolvency

MPC 261: Personal Representative’s Affidavit of Notice to Creditors of Representation of Insolvency

MPC 450: Renunciation of Right to Appointment and/or Nomination of Personal Representative has been replaced by MPC 455 Assent and Waiver of Notice/Renunciation/Nomination/Waiver of Sureties

MPC 455: Assent and Waiver of Notice/Renunciation/Waiver of Sureties

MPC 460: Waiver of Notice

MPC 470: Military Affidavit

MPC 475: Suspicious Death Affidavit

MPC 480: Affidavit of Witness to Will

MPC 485: Affidavit of Domicile

MPC 490: Affidavit in Support of Release of Demand for Sureties

MPC 505a: Notice of Appearance and/or Objection

MPC 775: Decree and Order of Compromise

MPC 780: Decree and Order of Insolvency

Forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or creating your Last Will and Testament or a Revocable Living Trust with the help of a Massachusetts lawyer is easy and affordable with MassLawOnline. Click Here to Get Started Today!

Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Samrakshak Shri Ashok Singhal in a statement during his visit to Gujarat on the occasion of Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha said that under the rule of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, Gujarat not only experienced development, but the society too became more powerful.

“I remember that in the past in Gujarat, during the Congress rule, how Jagannath Rathyatra was attacked, and how the secular government used to imposed curfew and also used to order to stop the yatra to insult the Hindus. Not only this but the Hindus had to face troubles while celebrating Janmashtami too. However during Shri Modiji’s rule, Hindu festivals and Rath yatras are celebrated in peaceful atmosphere in last ten years, and there is an atmosphere of peace in all corners.”

“A cow is the centre of faith for Hindus. On Gujarat government’s appeal, a seven-member batch of Supreme Court approved the ban on bovine slaughter legal, and refused to consider bovine slaughter as fundamental right of butchers. On the contrary the Congress party has made this nation the largest exporter of beef in the world, by encouraging the activities of cow slaughter.”

“The Congress supported government had filed affidavit in the Supreme Court to make a point that there was no historic evidence available on Shri Ram’s existence. They did so to demolish Ram Setu. Today, the biggest obstruction in construction of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi mandir is Conrgess and other so called secular powers that are challenged by people of Gujarat- the people who handed over power to Narendra Modi.”

“I have total faith that the people of Gujarat will continued to trust(Modi). Today, entire Hindu community is looking at people of Gujarat. There is no doubt that Gujarat will continue to maintain the atmosphere existing today. I congratulate the people of Gujarat.”

“Vishwa Hindu Parishad is determined to see that so called secular powers don’t come to power again.”

“I have full faith that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad workers in Gujarat will continue to work, maintaining caution against those who want to divide Hindus. Many in the world are impressed with Gujarat’s administration and the people of Gujarat.”

… and not because of Sandy.

Though I can breathe a sigh of relief that Robo Romney has finally been turned “Off”, I’m still annoyed by the election. This year I fulfilled my civic duty to the T. I transfered my drivers license to NY state (again) and registered to vote through the DMV website. I received my Notice of Approval a few weeks before the election date, which to me seemed like a confirmation of sorts.

Yesterday I walked over to my designated polling place and was greeted by a Latina who asked for my address to confirm I was in the right place. After she spent a few minutes scanning a large poster covered in size six font, she looked up and admitted she didn’t have her glasses. A fellow volunteer looked at the Notice of Approval I whipped out and had brought along for this exact situation and confirmed I was in the correct polling place. While walking to the back of the line, I thought to myself—aren’t all New Yorkers supposed to be able to vote wherever they can? Why such a screening process?

The line split in two for the 58th and 59th districts and I patiently waited about half an hour until I reached the front. Two volunteers sat at a table to check-in voters and hand them their ballots. I cheerily told them my name, scanned the table for “I Voted” stickers, and thought about how wonderful it was to be voting in this great city. Then the elfish volunteer in a green tassel beanie shit on my electoral parade.

Before receiving your ballot, you probably signed on a line in a box next to your printed name in some big Kinkos-bound book. Well, in my box were the words “SIGNATURE NOT AUTHORIZED. MUST FILL OUT AFFIDAVIT.” WTF! How did this happen? I was at the address printed on my Notice—what went wrong? Honestly, I didn’t have much interest in local officials but that was before I knew my right was revoked for some unknown reason.

The second check-in volunteer handed me an envelope and a ballot and shoo-ed me to a voting station before I could sputter any questions. While trying to decipher the voting grid, I couldn’t stop thinking about how I followed the system and yet it failed me. When I went to return my ballot, I asked the volunteer if there was a number to call or a manager I could speak to since I was concerned about the glitch. He rudely told me I had voted, there was nothing I could do, and to call the Board of Elections if I had a complaint. And that’s just what I did. It took me a good ten minutes to explain to the representative that I wasn’t calling to register to vote but rather to complain about my vote and she happily took down my information though I’ll bet it landed in the garbage as soon as I hung up.

And I didn’t even get a damn sticker.

This was disclosed today in an order passed by the Commission on an application filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who had sought inspection of certain sensitive documents pertaining to the riots.

In its order today, the Commission referred to the letter received from the office of Additional Director General (Intelligence) on October 18, 2012 which said, “Some of the documents sought for inspection have been destroyed in routine course and they are not available for producing them before this Commission”.

Referring to the letter, the Commission today directed the state government to file an affidavit.

“A responsible officer of the Government should put this fact in an affidavit for final clarification,” the Commission said.

With the state seeking time to file an affidavit till November 6, the Commission has scheduled further hearing in the case on November 7 when it may decide the question of relevance of those documents for examination by Bhatt.

Defending the government, counsel for the state government today argued that, “those documents were falling in the Category ‘G’ and it is a routine procedure not to keep them beyond one year.”

Last year also, a senior counsel appearing for the state government had told the media that documents sought by Bhatt were already destroyed. The state government, however, had denied that documents were destroyed.

Responding to the state government’s admission, Bhatt said today, “This is evidence of systematic effort to destroy sensitive documents pertaining to 2002 riots which can corroborate the complicity of the state machinery.”

Bhatt, who alleged complicity of Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots, had sought inspection of certain documents to file an affidavit before the Commission probing the riots cases, in support of his allegations.

The Commission had denied him access to those documents. Bhatt then filed a PIL before the High Court last month which accepted his plea and allowed him access to those documents.

Incidentally, during the course of the hearing on his PIL, Advocate General of the state had assured the court that documents sought by Bhatt would be submitted soon.

When Bhatt sought access to 47 documents for inspection based on the court order, only 16 were produced and state has opposed the access to others by citing provisions of the Gujarat Police Manual.

Commissioners for oaths are individuals licensed to be able to be able to be a professional witness to a signing of a document, take affidavits and administer oaths. If you require any of these services it is possible they will be provided by your local solicitor. However, although every solicitor is automatically a commissioner for oaths, not every practice deigns to provide these services. Automatically, the following individuals have the right to act as a commissioner for oaths:

– Barristers

– Solicitors

– Licensed conveyancers

– Notary public

– Fellow of the Institute of Legal executives

When Could I Need A Commissioner for an Oath?

You may need a commissioner of oaths if you are giving evidence via affidavit, be this written or spoken.

An affidavit is a statement which is voluntarily made, under no circumstances of cross examination. It is based on the affiant’s personal knowledge of the matter at hand, via direct observation or experience. For this reason, there is no age limit for affidavits, the requirements merely being that the individual must be able to understand the situation, the significance of the oath being made and has the mental capacity to make a statement of this kind. The information must be that which the individual believes to be true. If the individual gives a false testimony, they are liable to be convicted for perjury. A statement is not an affidavit unless an oath has been taken and authorized by an individual licensed to do so, in this instance a commissioner for oaths.

Affidavits are used in business, legal proceedings and for administration purposes. In business an affidavit is likely to be relied on to vouch for the financial stability of an individual or of a corporation. It will be used as an official statement for others to rely on. In judicial proceeding an affidavit is considered a weak form of evidence, and is likely to only be used when there is no other form of evidence available. This is because the witness has not been cross examined. If the witness is being questioned in court an affidavit may be used to help them recall their memories but not as overriding evidence. Finally, for administrative purposes they are used in situations where this is no objection to them being taken.

If you need another type of legal document witnessed, you may also wish to contact a commissioner for oaths to witness the signing.

Wherever you are in Kent, these Orpington Solicitors can help you with all your legal issues.
For a Commissioner of Oaths Kent, contact Ducat Law today.