« January 03, 2021 - January 09, 2021 | Main | January 31, 2021 - February 06, 2021 »
January 21, 2021
“The Bells of Rhymney”
I’ve loved “The Bells of Rhymney” since it stood out hauntingly on my first Byrds album when I was about 14. Like any good well-rounded Indian Hill High kid, I looked up its traditional roots in my teenage years. And it meant more and more to me the more I get to hear great church bells of new cities. Anyway, the late folk great Pete Seeger borrowed the lyrics from either the Welsh or the Brits. And Jim-Roger McGuinn got it from old Pete. Some think the song is the first folk rock. I think it’s great music and lyrics. I’ll play the Byrds version later. And since I come from a musical tribe (both Holdens and Hulls) I would love to hear my talented cousin songwriter-musician-singer Diane Healey perform this. Later I’ll come back here and post the song that appears on that 1965 album.
“The Bells of Rhymney”
Oh, what will you give me?
Say the sad bells of Rhymney
Is there hope for the future?
Say the brown bells of Merther
Who made the mine open?
Say the black bells of Rhonda
And who killed the miner?
Say the grim bells of Lina
Who aband' us in court?
Say the bells of Newport
All will be well if-if-if-if-if,
Say the green bells of Cardiff
Why so worried, sister why?
Say the silver bells of Whye
And what will you give me?
Say the sad bells of Rhymney
Oh, what will you give me?
Say the sad bells of Rymney
Is there hope for the future?
Say the brown bells of Merther
Who made the mine open?
Say the black bells of Rhonda
And who killed the miner?
Say the grim bells of Lina
Songwriters: Idris Davies / Pete Seeger
The Bells of Rhymney lyrics © T.R.O. Inc.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:25 PM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2021
Sensitive Litigation Moment No. 1: Crystal, the Missing Notary.
.jpg)
Crystal, blowing off work again--and just when you need her.
Not exciting. Just useful. In October of 1976, Congress passed a barely-noticed housekeeping addition to Title 28, the wide-ranging tome inside the U.S. Code governing federal courts, the Justice Department, jurisdiction, venue, procedure and, ultimately, virtually all types of evidence. 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 is curiously entitled "Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury".
It allows a federal court affiant or witness to prepare and execute a "declaration"--in lieu of a conventional affidavit--and do that without appearing before a notary. Under Section 1746, the declaration has the same force and effect of a notarized affidavit. Read the 160 word provision--but in most cases it's simple. At a minimum, the witness at the conclusion of her statement needs to do this:
"I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
A "unsworn" declaration with the oath required by section 1746 can be used almost any time you need an affidavit, e.g., an affidavit supporting (or opposing) a summary judgment motion.
Some lawyers who practice in federal courts still don't know about the existence of Section 1746, (probably because so many of us practice primarily in state courts, and we stick to comfortable state practices and folkways). I wouldn't have known about it either; a Justice Department lawyer clued me in on it 20 years ago.
Federal judges understand and accept it. It saves clients, witnesses and lawyers the time, cost and aggravation of getting client statements notarized. Your three notaries--Nadine, Crystal and Raphael the Librarian, together with their notary kits--are in the office like clockwork, except, of course, the very days you need to have them witness and notarize a document. So it's a useful and convenient provision.
Not exciting--but it is one of the few efficient, and reliable, moments anyone sees in the trial process.
[Original WAC/P? post: February 3, 2009]
Posted by JD Hull at 08:31 PM | Comments (0)