matters covered by it). Cases interpreting § 446 require verification to substantially comply with the statute in substance and form. If the verification is “wholly insufficient in form” it must be treated as a failure to verify. See 4 B. Witkin, California Procedure § 422, at 468 (1985) (hereinafter Witkin) (citing Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 20 P. 297 (1889)); Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green, 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150, 115 Cal.Rptr. 879, 881 (1974) (verification must be in such a form that the criminal sanction of perjury might apply where the material facts declared to be true are, in fact, not true or are not known to be true). But, a mere “technical defect” in form of verification is excusable. See Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara, 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 86, 30 Cal.Rptr. 121, 123 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Recently, a California appellate court has
holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr  2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr  2141c holding that an attorneys mistaken notarization of an acknowledgment form rather than a verification amounted to substantial compliance