Is it legal to use a single signature on a PDF?

Brian Edwards6 said:We were the ones who handpicked the people responsible for the looting and the destruction. In that sense, this was always a political issue from the jump; now, it’s simply a matter of law. Legal proceedings are already underway, and I suspect we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet—there will likely be countless more cases to follow.👍

Almost every driver I pull over seems to lead with the same question: "Can we work something out?" It’s a classic. Unfortunately, around here, those kinds of negotiations still fall into a rather questionable category.👍

LeptiricaVau As stated by:
... how exactly are you supposed to settle your debts when you don't even have a job? With what, exactly?

Debt isn't some immutable law of nature. You can extend the term, negotiate a grace period, or settle on smaller installment payments—there are plenty of ways to navigate it. Honestly, in a significant number of cases, we wouldn't have even reached this point if things had been handled differently from the start.👍

Well, I certainly didn't cast my vote for them—neither back then nor now. Honestly, I’d have to consider myself a complete fool if I let them pull the wool over my eyes twice in a row.

If we're being realistic, there isn't actually a choice to be made. You're left staring at two equally corrupt factions, while the outsiders remain completely sidelined by a total lack of power, money, and media influence.

In my estimation, it seems more likely that Los Angeles FC will win the Champions League before we see any decent, honest people rise to the top of the political ladder. Sure, on paper, both scenarios are technically possible—much like the plots of fairy tales or some particularly naive delusions—but reality usually tells a much different story.

urbangull90 said:Debt isn't just about what you borrow, you know? It’s more complicated than that. People always act like debt only happens when you swipe a credit card or take out a loan from a bank like Chase, but it's deeper than just those transactions. It's built into the very fabric of how things move.

That’s great, really. It’s just a shame that this is the topic we're stuck with. The New York TimesI mean, honestly, what else can you even say? It’s just one of those things where you look at the situation, realize how absurd it all is, and just kind of shrug. There isn't much point in overanalyzing it when the outcome feels pretty much set in stone anyway. Just another day in the life, I guess. Spot on.So, look, it’s basically what a bunch of people have been hammering home lately—both in this thread and over on the Law subreddit—that The New York Times is the one actually calling the shots when it comes to passing legislation.

Honestly, on a forum that’s laid out like this one—where you actually have dedicated sections for stuff like The New York Times coverage or legal discussions kept as separate entities—it would be nice if people actually tried to put their posts where they belong. It shouldn't be this hard to stick to the designated spots.

I don't know, man. I've been staring at this screen for an hour trying to wrap my head around it all, and honestly, it just feels like we're spinning our wheels in the sand. You look at what's happening, you read the latest deep dives in *The New Yorker*, and you realize how little actually changes. It’s always the same cycle. We talk, we argue, we pretend we're making progress, but then the sun goes down and we're right back where we started. Just another day in the grind.

But then again, that was merely my attempt at addressing the tangent drot13 went off on.

I would argue that if we are capable of debating ethics within the medical profession, then we must certainly be able to apply that same scrutiny to the legal system and police conduct. The officers mentioned in this article, who flatly refused to carry out those evictions, clearly chose to rely on their own moral compasses and individual consciences rather than blindly following a set of rigid, mandated protocols.

Where exactly does this total inability to utilize one’s own brain—or even a shred of conscience—actually lead? It is illustrated quite profoundly by that film I mentioned earlier, *The New Yorker*.

feralranger said:To my mind, true "whining" consists of encouraging people to follow the letter of the law without using a single ounce of brainpower.

Allow me to share a brief anecdote from my own life:

I was once driving home when I encountered a massive road construction site about a hundred yards ahead. This happened near an intersection where turning left is strictly prohibited by a sign. Naturally, that no-left-turn sign exists to prevent cutting off oncoming traffic, but there was absolutely no oncoming traffic to speak of, as the other side of the intersection was completely blocked by the construction zone.

Since we don't have helicopters to fly over the mess, and the sign was utterly nonsensical in this context, we all took the left turn. Just around the corner, we were intercepted by two police officers who greeted us with the classic line, "A rule is a rule." 🤣

Some drivers before us had already been shaken down for cash, but I decided to rebel a bit, attempting to explain that the sign was meaningless given the construction site blocking the crossroad.

They didn't initially possess enough integrity or common sense to grasp the situation, but eventually, they did. They didn't shake down the rest of the group of drivers stopped with me, and they eventually cleared out of there...

So, even if it was by the narrowest of margins, they realized it is far better to use one's intellect than to parrot the phrase "a rule is a rule" like a mindless bird. That link I shared was about police officers who actually exercised their conscience.

I truly wish that things like what those two officers managed to realize could also be understood by Brian Edwards6 and the other moderators on this site.

Why should a forum, which is intended to be a place for discussion, have its standards lowered to a brainless repetition of "a rule is a rule," when those two officers managed to rise above that, however tenuously?

let me tell you how it works: you don't get anywhere by getting into a shouting match with a cop.
you explain your perspective, and if they don't get it—well, let them write the ticket.
after that, you can either sit around waiting for the fine and then appeal it, or you can politely report the officer to Internal Affairs and complain about what is essentially harassment.

If you just argue on the spot, all you're doing is causing a scene and creating problems for yourself, and that is NOT how you resolve anything.
I’ve lost my temper with highway patrol before, too, but I didn't go screaming at them or trying to start a fight.
Instead, I filed a formal complaint. I ended up looking like a fool because all I got was a ruling from a judge and a tiny extra fee tacked onto the fine—which is frankly disgusting and definitely worth debating in terms of judicial principles—so now I’m stuck writing an appeal for an appeal, hoping one day I'll get the chance to explain the situation to someone who isn't operating with a single functioning neuron.

hollowtrucker77 said:let me tell you how it works: you don't get anywhere by getting into a shouting match with a cop.
you explain your perspective, and if they don't get it—well, let them write the ticket.
after that, you can either sit around waiting for the fine and then appeal it, or you can politely report the officer to Internal Affairs and complain about what is essentially harassment.

If you just argue on the spot, all you're doing is causing a scene and creating problems for yourself, and that is NOT how you resolve anything.
I’ve lost my temper with highway patrol before, too, but I didn't go screaming at them or trying to start a fight.
Instead, I filed a formal complaint. I ended up looking like a fool because all I got was a ruling from a judge and a tiny extra fee tacked onto the fine—which is frankly disgusting and definitely worth debating in terms of judicial principles—so now I’m stuck writing an appeal for an appeal, hoping one day I'll get the chance to explain the situation to someone who isn't operating with a single functioning neuron.

What kind of "shouting match" are we talking about? As I stated, I simply explained my reasoning to them. It was a struggle, certainly, but they eventually realized that clinging blindly to the mantra of "it's the law, end of story" is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. In the end, they didn't issue a citation to me or the group traveling with me, and they moved on.

Do you see? They actually understood! And here I am, foolishly wishing that some people in this forum might exhibit a similar capacity for comprehension. Am I being overly optimistic? 🤷

my bad, I totally misread the situation
🙂
honestly, it’s pretty much perfect for keeping things quiet

Brian Edwards6 said:We were the ones who handpicked the people responsible for the looting and the destruction. In that sense, this was always a political issue from the jump; now, it’s simply a matter of law. Legal proceedings are already underway, and I suspect we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet—there will likely be countless more cases to follow.👍

Almost every driver I pull over seems to lead with the same question: "Can we work something out?" It’s a classic. Unfortunately, around here, those kinds of negotiations still fall into a rather questionable category.👍

LeptiricaVau As stated by:
... how exactly are you supposed to settle your debts when you don't even have a job? With what, exactly?

Debt isn't some immutable law of nature. You can extend the term, negotiate a grace period, or settle on smaller installment payments—there are plenty of ways to navigate it. Honestly, in a significant number of cases, we wouldn't have even reached this point if things had been handled differently from the start.👍

If I recall correctly, offering a bribe is a felony in the US. You’re saying nearly every driver you stop—even undercover—tries to offer one? Out of curiosity, what percentage of those offenders have you actually reported? Just recently, someone in Mexico was sentenced to ten months in prison just for attempting to bribe an officer. It's simple logic, really—if you take a car to a mechanic for an oil change and they don't actually change the oil, you aren't paying them, right? American taxpayers pay the police to do their jobs; if an officer ignores a bribe attempt, they aren't doing their job—regardless of the paycheck.

If everyone reported every bribe attempt, whether undercover or not—leaving the legalities to the courts—I truly believe things would shift within a few years. People wouldn't even dream of offering a bribe if they knew it meant a jail cell.

ps. I'm keeping an eye on this thread, waiting for a real admin to step in and clear this out—and perhaps sanction some participants—since we're essentially discussing Spanish police procedures on an American forum.

pps. Deciding not to enforce foreclosures isn't helping people; it's actually a massive blow to the average citizen. Which bank is going to accept a mortgage as collateral if they can't actually execute a foreclosure? Imagine two brothers: one is cautious about the economy and decides against taking out a loan. The other doesn't think twice and dives into debt. The first brother keeps his job but still lives with his parents, while the second lives in his own apartment but stops making payments after losing his job. In the end, the responsible one can't get a home loan because banks are too spooked by debtors like his brother. It almost makes being reckless look like the smart move, doesn't it?

feraljackal2 said:If I recall correctly, offering a bribe is a felony in the US. You’re saying nearly every driver you stop—even undercover—tries to offer one? Out of curiosity, what percentage of those offenders have you actually reported? Just recently, someone in Mexico was sentenced to ten months in prison just for attempting to bribe an officer. It's simple logic, really—if you take a car to a mechanic for an oil change and they don't actually change the oil, you aren't paying them, right? American taxpayers pay the police to do their jobs; if an officer ignores a bribe attempt, they aren't doing their job—regardless of the paycheck.

If everyone reported every bribe attempt, whether undercover or not—leaving the legalities to the courts—I truly believe things would shift within a few years. People wouldn't even dream of offering a bribe if they knew it meant a jail cell.

ps. I'm keeping an eye on this thread, waiting for a real admin to step in and clear this out—and perhaps sanction some participants—since we're essentially discussing Spanish police procedures on an American forum.

pps. Deciding not to enforce foreclosures isn't helping people; it's actually a massive blow to the average citizen. Which bank is going to accept a mortgage as collateral if they can't actually execute a foreclosure? Imagine two brothers: one is cautious about the economy and decides against taking out a loan. The other doesn't think twice and dives into debt. The first brother keeps his job but still lives with his parents, while the second lives in his own apartment but stops making payments after losing his job. In the end, the responsible one can't get a home loan because banks are too spooked by debtors like his brother. It almost makes being reckless look like the smart move, doesn't it?

They aren't actually being debated; rather, the individuals in the link I provided are merely being cited as prime examples of what happens when one actually exercises independent thought. Even those two officers from my own personal encounter—while it was certainly a struggle—managed to grasp the reality of the situation and abandoned their mindless insistence that "rules are rules" without applying a shred of common sense. (And one can only hope they moved on to performing some genuinely productive work afterward...)

Is nothing ever going to change?

Over at this link, I’ve gone ahead and included an illustration—purely for visual aid, of course—featuring two police officers who actually managed (albeit by the skin of their teeth) to grasp the concept that laws shouldn't always be followed with the mindless, stumbling rigidity of a drunkard crashing through a picket fence.

Yet here on this forum, led by our illustrious moderator drot13, one is expected to maintain a significantly narrower perspective; specifically, is the intellectual threshold here required to be even lower than that of those two street cops? 🤷