Hilariously, the explanation of the notarization typo (actually, I find that believable) is a 1746 "declaration." It's an old federal law which provides that as

Hilariously, the explanation of the notarization typo (actually, I find that believable) is a 1746 "declaration." It's an old federal law which provides that as long as you say you are signing under oath, it is as good as an affidavit in federal court. Why didn't he just make a declaration in the first place? Also, why would he have the lawyer who is in trouble notarize the document? Now that he has made the typo, he may now need Schwartz's testimony that actually, it was April 25, not January. In my legal career, I worked for a judge once. He told me to never get a notary stamp. It only creates problems. There's never a good reason for a lawyer to notarize something. You ask your staff to do it instead.