State Of Ohio Affadavit: Fill & Download for Free

You’ve already decided that judges, including the many who were appointed to the bench by Republicans, just “don’t even want to look” at allegations of electrion fraud. But I will give it a try, since I don’t know you and you may still be able to be reached by truth.Federal courts - every one at every level - requires of a plaintiff a few critical things upfront: 1) an allegation of a basis for federal jurisdiction, since, unlike state court jurisdiction, it is presumed not to exist unless the plaintiff can show why it is; 2) a concise and simple statement of the facts of the case; and 3) facts showing that the plaintiff has what is called “standing”, meaning some sort of injury - physical, legal or even potential - that has or will occur unless judicial relief is provided. This is laid out in Fed R Civ P 8 and has been for years. Here’s the link to the text Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) , but if you’re unable to use that, here is the text:(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.”This Rule has a long history, as shown in the Committee’s Notes to it: See [former] Equity Rules 25 (Bill of Complaint—Contents), and 30 (Answer—Contents—Counterclaim). Compare 2 Ind.Stat.Ann. (Burns, 1933) §§2–1004, 2–1015; 2 Ohio Gen.Code Ann. (Page, 1926) §§11305, 11314; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. (1933), §§104–7–2, 104–9–1.The nearly 60 lawsuits filed by Trump supporters all foundered, faced with motions seeking dismissal, on two critical points: 1) no facts, even to support what is called a “prima facie” case, meaning a really basic showing of evidence showing at least a minimum of support for the case; or 2) standing, again a showing that the plaintiff has been or might be injured personally in some manner if the suit is not pursued.The plaintiffs failed repeatedly on one or both of these two simple requirements. One often cited by a number of Republican-appointed judges was the absence of any admissible evidence to support the allegations. Someone signing an affadavit does not automatically make evidence, merely because it’s sworn. Nor does making claims about what might have happened when it is something the alleged witness didin’t see. Repeating something someone else is said to have said is not evidence because it is not true within the personal knowledge of the person signing the affidavit.The second requirement of standing was repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court, which always included a majoritiy of Republican-appointed Justices. The plaintiffs were never able to show that their clients would suffer any injury. Wild and evidence-free conspiracy theories are not evidence of injury; they are just the imaginings of people who have no real life, and are grasping at imaginary things to make themselves feel important as they have imagined access to information denied to others. Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? // Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? // The 6 Reasons People Believe in Conspiracy Theories // Conspiracy Theory Disorder: Understanding Why People BelieveThink about what would happen if these things were not required. It would mean anybody with some imagined grievance, no matter how ridiculous or imagined, would be able to take cases to trial. That would clog the courts with baseless cases, and would require drafting thousands of citizens away from their jobs and homes to serve as jurors. Further, how else should cases be decided if not on facts? It would mean that judge would be an empty title, just a way to collect a paycheck. Since there would be no enforceable law and no remedy for someone who is truly injuried, we would be back to the “might makes right” level of savagery. Is that what you want?Now, if you prefer to believe your imaginings, that is of course your right. But if you want to believe in reality and truth, you need to reject statements like you made in your query where you described your desired result, not an actual question seeking knowledge.

You have to look well beyond the events of the 6th January to get the whole story here.First off, we have to be clear in a simple assertion: the only reason those ‘protestors’ were there in Washington in the first place was to attend an anti-Congress rally held by Donald Trump. January 6th was the day that Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 election, reading out the formal certificates sent by the Electoral College to that end. The entire point of that rally was to stir up Trump’s supporters about this event taking place.Trump had spent months baselessly asserting that the elections had been fraudulent: that he had won “by a landslide”, and that the only reason Joe Biden was likely to take office on January 20th was because the election was “stolen”. This is not a claim that any rational individual makes in the absence of evidence, but that’s exactly what we spent months observing.Over 60 court cases, multiple recounts, numerous audits, state certifications and an Electoral College vote…not a single corroboration of Trump’s “widespread electoral fraud” claims. The affadavits presented in court, and the claims of fraud that were being perpetrated by the Trump Campaign could not be verified by the states. All the ballots checked out (although there were several instances of fraud by Trump supporters, notably in Pennsylvania and Iowa). What it boils down to is that Trump was continuing to make claims of fraud in the absence of any conclusive and corroborated evidence.Being blunt, Trump had passed the “safe haven” deadline. His challenges to the election, both through the courts and via the electoral system itself had been utterly rejected. By January 6th, not a single legal avenue remained by which Trump could challenge the election. The Electoral College had made it clear: Joe Biden won the election and would be sworn in on January 20th.December 19th, we got two Tweets from Trump, both of which are rather telling:“Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election”Combined with:“Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”Beyond merely the rhetoric we’d been hearing from Trump, ask yourself: what purpose was there in holding that rally in DC? Could it have changed the outcome? No. Could it have induced Congress to reject the Electoral College votes? Possibly, but it wasn’t likely - the Democratic majority in the House made that next to impossible. And why DC? Trump didn’t hold it in Florida, or in Ohio, or in Texas. He held his rally in the nation’s capital, one of the few rare instances of this happening.The only reason to hold a rally there, at that time and on that date, was to ensure that his most fervent supporters were present in Washington DC when Congress was gavelled into joint session.Look at Rudy Giuliani’s “Trial by Combat”. Look at Donald Jr.’s tweet:“The best thing for America’s future is for Donald Trump to go to total war over this election to expose all of the fraud, cheating, dead/no longer in state voters, that has been going on for far too long,”Or his words at that same rally as the one that Trump later headlined:“If you’re gonna be the zero and not the hero, we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it!”And then Trump’s own words during the “Save America” Rally:You will have an illegitimate president. That’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.Ask yourself: even if that’s the case, all legal avenues to contest the election have been exhausted. How then do you not “let that happen”? What mechanisms can be employed to prevent it?Then of course, the big one:And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.I don’t give a damn what people think that means: to a crowd that is angry, upset and have been steadily prompted to feel more and more frustration and resentment over the past few hours, whilst being talked to by Trump, his son and some of his associates, the invariable consequence of such statements is to push people over the edge. They weren’t just going to peacefully walk up to the Capitol. They were pissed off, and saw no other way to accomplish what Trump wanted: to overturn the election in his favour.Additionally, we know that those supporters had turned up prepared for violence. Men wearing “MAGA Civil War” t-shirts, clearly citing January 6th. A gallows erected outside the Capitol Building. Trump supporters in full tactical gear carrying restraint cuffs. These were not spontaneous acts. It was something they had come prepared for.Trump knew this, too: he knew fully well that when you spit angry rhetoric and claim that “You’re not going to have a country anymore”, the people you summoned to hear those words are going to want to fight for their vision of that country. They don’t want it to disappear.More than that, Trump’s response to the insurrection spoke volumes. According to Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)[1] :“As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”In addition to this, Donald Trump refrained from calling out the National Guard to support the law enforcement officers attempting to protect the Capitol Building. Indeed, it was ultimately Mike Pence that ordered their deployment, in concert with the Pentagon - a thing that ultimately falls under Presidential authority, but this was not asserted by Trump. What can we take from that?As this was ongoing, Trump tweeted further:“I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order.We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this, where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you, you’re very special. We’ve seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know you how feel. But go home, and go home in peace.”Not his usual “When the looting starts, the shooting starts” that was directed at BLM protestors: no, this was very much perpetuating not only the very lies that had triggered the attack in the first place, but something that was clearly designed to demonstrate that Trump supported their actions. The “We have to have peace” part was more of the “This is what you’re supposed to say when you’re President”, but note: it was not a condemnation of their actions. The “We love you, you’re very special” part was directed at people who had engaged in an act of vicious insurrection against the United States, at the cost of people’s lives.If that doesn’t make it evidently clear that this is what Trump wanted, nothing will.It was Trump who started the nonsense about a fraudulent election. It was Trump who stirred up frustration and resentment about it, even though all legal means of contesting the election as over. It was Trump who gathered those frustrated and angry supporters in Washington DC on January 6th, and it was Donald Trump who told them that they had to “fight like Hell”, or they wouldn’t have a country anymore.What else did anyone expect was going to happen? Did Trump really think those supporters would show up, get angry and just go home? Or did he bring them there, knowing that their frustrations would boil over, and provide them with a target for their rage?I think it’s fair to say we all know which way this went.Footnotes[1] Senator Ben Sasse On Impeachment and Transition, the GOP in Minority - The Hugh Hewitt Show