UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 27

Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:31:07 +0000
Archived: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:08:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:14:52 -0800
>Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

>For me personally, assuming that Walter was in sound mind, and
>there are witnesses who declare he was, including an M.D. at the
>time he signed Schmitt's chronicle then, as stated before, I
>endorse the legality of the instrument.


Dear All:

It been really interesting watching this discussion evolve. It
documents how UFO researchers can send themselves down paths of
dubious merit.

I am going to try once again.

The last document Haut signed was not legally binding, nor
required him to tell the truth. No oath was given to Haut. And,
Haut did not want to take one.

Therefore, Schmidt wrote up a statement which Haut signed-off on
with the stipulation it not be opened until after Haut's death.

Haut was not being required to be truthful. It was _not_ an

I have no idea why you all insist on calling a sealed statement
an affidavit. It must be that none of you are familiar with
legal documents. And, I guess it makes your discussion seem more
important if the sealed statement becomes an affidavit in your

Haut's signature does not make the document legal.

The notary could only declare the signature was that of Haut.
The notary does not have the authority to administer an oath.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com