Sworn Statement Form California: Fill & Download for Free

Mid America here. All are my personal opinions and observations.Damage Control, CBS has been accused along with Harpo Productions, the producers of the “interview”, of Distorting the Interview as a newsworthy and fact checked primetime show, without any news organizations oversight. Oprah failed as how this interview was possibly sold.This would have been ok if Oprah challenged the accusations and allegations coming from Meghan, not so much when Harry showed up. This “design” of production and editing was just for Harry to say sure, what ever Meghan said is right. Oprah failed any Journalistic standards here, in editing all of the accusations with out challenge or oversight is not any more than an attack and defamation soap opera, or edited out completely.CBS King called to “check on” her friends to follow up? Is CBS now trying to mitigate and access the fall out from a very irresponsible and less than a newsworthy produced piece that was possibly produced under false journalistic guidelines or was deceptive from the beginning from the original agreements with ViaCom which they then sold to ITV for worldwide distribution.I can imagine Harry DID reach out first, again to access the “fallout”. The media will show this as Harry and Meghan reaching out with an olive branch that was not received well. Not surprising, they, the Royal Family have probably been advised to “no Comment’ now that the Palace is formally investigating Meghan on getting sworn statements by several victims and witnesses to the abuse. Harry is also a witness to her behaviors, as he was running interference for his wife.CBS can/may try to negotiate and offer to produce itself a rebuttal piece, but the Royal Family usually does not get involved with tabloid nonsense, especially when half are residing in another country. However, charges can be made where the defendant Meghan will have to be a witness.Oprah and King have media influence, and have the money to buy themselves out of any trouble or accountability. And I personally don’t think they care at this point unless it was Gayle King who misrepresented the original distribution rights and agreement made with Harpo Productions. I think both have to have had some sort of dubious plans with Markle long ago, both have too much publishing and production experience to have been so negligent in the production of this piece and the guidelines, was it a docudrama, a fake story or a hit piece from the beginning? Disclaimers, trailers and agreements are all in question. As they certainly should be, even in this left liberal wasteland of the media mouth pieces on the air everyday in US. Major toxicity is spread when biased commentary is masked as journalist investigation or news worthy oversight. We see so much bullshit come out and half the nation thinks its all true, because they think the person is reporting the news, not just ranting their personal ideology. Oprah, Gayle and Meghan are now among that group.Meghan and Harry should get used to having their calls to the Royal Family, missed, unproductive, or ignored all together. I hope so anyway. I personally would never speak to them again, or invite them to any family reunion. The Cambridge and the Middleton Families are very close and love one another deeply. The Montebatten-Windsor family living in California will probably not be missed, in my opinion. God Bless

Immigrants, documented or otherwise, do not have the right to vote in federal elections until and unless they obtain citizenship. Federal law is quite clear that only citizens may vote in an election for federal office.States may, but need not, in their discretion, extend the franchise to anyone they want for nonfederal elections. No state currently permits noncitizens to vote in its statewide elections; the last to do so was Arkansas, which abolished that right in the 1920s. There are places where noncitizens may be allowed to vote in certain municipal elections, most commonly elections for local school boards, where the franchise is sometimes extended to noncitizens parents of children currently attending school in the district. But no state may allow a person who is not a citizen of the United States to vote in an election for federal office.Federal law doesn't require states to mandate any particular form of proof of citizenship; here in Illinois the "proof" of citizenship is the sworn statement of the registrant, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a citizen of the United States. No further documentation is required. Other states mandate stricter requirements. In practice, "vote fraud" by noncitizens ineligible to vote is exceedingly rare, regardless of the mechanism used by the state to enforce the federal restriction.A state may grant a broader franchise to vote in federal elections than the minimum requirements of federal law, but as federal law requires the enfranchisement of all citizens 18 years or older, other than those who have been convicted of a felony or adjudged mentally incompetent, and forbids the enfranchisement of all noncitizens, about the only way that a state can expand the franchise within these boundaries is to grant the vote to some persons under the age of 18, and to allow certain felons the franchise even though federal law does not so require. And indeed there is some variability in the margins here between the states, with some states denying felons the vote for life, while others restore the franchise to convicted felons under certain circumstances (which vary from state to state), and with some but not all states allowing seventeen year olds to vote in certain circumstances.

In California, an affidavit is a sworn statement, signed after an oath is administered by a duly commissioned official of the state or county courts.A notary public is a commissioned official who may administer an oath and witness the signing of a sworn statement (an affidavit/jurat.)Usually a notary public operates separately from a court, remotely, for the convenience of the public who need to execute statements of truth and have them witnessed by a public official who records the transaction in a permanent record/journal for later use if needed.If an affidavit is taken as part of a court proceeding, or in the context of a deposition, then either a court recorder or a transcriber (who is authorized by the state or the court) may serve to authenticate the affidavit to assure an oath was given and the person is who they say they are.