Dependent Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

Not quite sure where you’re going with this one.The affidavits themselves are clearly not hearsay and they’re the testimony of the affiant.Is the content of the affidavits hearsay? Clearly not all of them are, because a fair number of them in the Michigan case were things the affiant directly witnessed but misunderstood because they apparently didn’t attend the orientation for poll watchers or didn’t pay attention because their claims that something was wrong depended on fanciful notions of how things should have been happening.UPDATE: All right, I’ve now demonstrated that I am not, in fact, a lawyer. But I have now talked to a lawyer whose opinions I trust on this. And my conclusion is….I was half right. Affidavits generally are accepted in pretrial hearings, such as motions to dismiss. They are not generally accepted at trial, unless they are introduced as evidence to show that a witness has contradicted something they said earlier in an affidavit.None of the election fraud cases Giuliani has been involved in have actually made it to trial yet (and it doesn’t look like any will), so the affidavits are playing a role in the hearings so far.

The issue we’re seeing with the Trump Campaign’s attempts to overturn the election result is that they can’t press for fraud without direct evidence of this being the case. The use of affidavits isn’t sufficient to prove anything: any testimony given by an individual, either before the court or notary public, must thereafter be corroborated by additional evidence. Otherwise it doesn’t hold up.Do remember: an affidavit is ultimately susceptible to the same issues as any form of eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, since it’s dependent on confirmation bias, memory recall, assumptions made and, in many cases, relaying what someone told you about an event you weren’t actually a witness to. This is part of why the courts have largely rejected the affidavits as evidence. As one judge put it:"What I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit. If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that the [witness] observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. ... 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell me why that's not hearsay. Come on now."As Judge Brann (of Pennsylvania) observed in his decision on a Trump Campaign case:"Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by the evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."In other words, the ‘evidence’ presented to the courts thus far is no more than hearsay, and not backed up by any formal documentary evidence - and certainly not corroborated by anything discovered during recounts and hand assessment of ballots across the United States.Thus, lawyers representing the Trump Campaign cannot walk into court and claim voter fraud. They don’t have the evidence to support that, and they put themselves at risk by arguing something they cannot prove. As the Legal Information Institute at Cornell notes:Disbarment may be imposed by the state bar association if a lawyer commits an offense that directly relates to his or her fitness to practice law. Such offenses may include dishonesty, fraud, felony, substance abuse, abuse of public office, or “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”Thus, to claim fraud absent proof with the intent of overturning an election result would amount to dishonest conduct: they know there has been no fraud, and have no evidence to prove otherwise, so to present such a case to the courts is a flagrant violation of their duty of care. Their job is to assess a case and decide if it has sufficient merit to go before a judge. If it doesn’t, that’s not going to reflect well on them - and even moreso if the judge takes issue with their actions.What it boils down to is that the affidavits are largely hearsay and assumption, largely lacking in any substantive evidence that could back a charge of voter fraud, and therefore aren’t sufficient to get the job done.And, to be quite fair, they were never intended to overturn the election. They were designed to muddy the issue, designed to undermine President-Elect Biden’s efforts to effect a proper transition, and designed to allow the Trump Campaign to continue soliticing donations from their supporters, which is helping to pay off their campaign expenditures.Put bluntly, it’s a con, and one that’s being perpetrated through the courts in an attempt to give it legitimacy. The only positive is that the courts aren’t buying it, which proves at least that the judiciary are protecting the American people at a time when their President and his re-election campaign clearly are not.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and I am answering this only because there are not yet any answers.An affidavit is a sworn statement. It carries the same weight as a statement made in court under oath.Now, not just anything that anyone says in a courtroom counts as evidence. In the case of the US election, the affidavits seem to be mostly of the kind “I heard X say that he had been instructed to cheat”. This is called hearsay, and is normally not admitted as evidence. None are of the kind “Y instructed me to cheat”, which could be admitted as evidence, depending on what exactly it says—for instance, many of them are obviously based on a complete lack of understanding of how the election and vote counting actually works and simply describe the normal, legal process. (The famous “3,000 not Nevada residents” are of this kind; they are soldiers stationed abroad and they are legally allowed to vote, so the affidavit is meaningless.)And many of the affidavits seem to be so spurious that they haven’t even been shown to the courts. They appear to be of the kind “It stands to reason”, and any attorney trying to present them as evidence will be reprimanded, at best, and disbarred at worst.And of course, the “sworn statement” bit goes both ways. This is why the question is poorly phrased: you don’t mean that Trump himself has signed the affidavits, because if he swears that he has witnessed something in Michigan or Pennsylvania when he was demonstrably not in the state, this is what is known as perjury, and can have very dire consequences. You mean that he has signed affidavits, that is, affidavits that have been signed by the person making the claim.