Philadelphia Affidavit Form: Fill & Download for Free

This is a long answer that will summarize all the testimonies and rebut most of the misleading information.Most of the people have covered the fact that this wasn’t an official hearing, it was more like a GOP clubhouse meeting with a GOP Pennsylvania legislator. No one was under oath.It seems that they held a similar meeting in Arizona with similar results. It’s performatively trying to look official to give more credence to their conspiracy theories and misinformation since they clearly don’t have the evidence to press forward in court.This was a superspreader event. They attempt to spread misinformation masquerading as official testimony…and no one wore a mask in a small hotel ballroom.Let’s look at Giuliani’s testimony, first.To summarize in advance, it’s full of either lies or ignorance mixed with misinformation.During the course of this election, we’ve come pretty close to losing our right to free speech. There’s been censorship that I’ve never seen before, of an incredible nature by big tech, big networks, big companies.This is utter nonsense. “Big tech” can’t censor you, by definition your right to free speech is protected from the government. Facebook has been removing fake posts, while Twitter has been labeling them as misinformation (but still showing them). This is Victimhood talk, and pathetic victimhood talk on top of it. What I’m reading here is that the Trumpists don’t want government out of business, they want to regulate media companies to only tell their truth.You know there was a fierce debate over whether we should have mail-in ballots in the first place.It’s so bizarre the different factual universes we find ourselves in. We’ve always had mail-in ballots. Every state had a way to mail in ballots for decades. Several states have exclusively mail in ballots. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS VOTES BY MAIL! This narrative has been invented by the GOP who have spend decades stacking the deck through dozens of legalized voter suppression measures.[1] They knew that voter turnout would be increased significantly by mail in ballots and have been eroding public trust in the process that the President himself utilizes in order to stage this last ditch attack on Democracy.Many scholars, many experts, always felt that mail-in ballots were very dangerous because they’re very easy to forge, it leads to more defrauding. We will warned by Justice Souter, among others. We will warned by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, in a report that they did on how to make elections more secure.I couldn’t find what Souter said other than a decision that he would have upheld restrictions in Texas on helping the elderly cast their ballots out of fears of ballot harvesting.[2] Also, The Carter Foundation found the exact opposite thing that Giuliani has claimed.[3]“I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy – the right of our citizens to vote,” said former President Carter.Giuliani continues:Witnesses we present are going to first show you that, in the case of Philadelphia, and in the case of Allegheny County, and one or two other counties, the mail-in ballots that were received, were not inspected at all by any Republican, they were hidden from Republicans. In the case of Philadelphia and Allegheny County, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I do believe the witnesses will show that a Republican never got to see a single ballot.This is directly contradicted by their lawyers:The transcript from one of Trump’s legal challenges is fascinating. The judge trying to get to the bottom of whether they WERE allowed to have observers:Judge : “Are your observers in the counting room?”Trump lawyer: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.” pic.twitter.com/CU4VbqIfj4— Man vs Baby (@mattcoyney) November 6, 2020Not just in this case, but in every one.Giuliani continues to complain about absentee ballots not being a problem normally because it’s acceptable to have a little bit of fraud, in his book (I mean, to be fair, there’s likely always a small amount of fraud, these elections are a big deal).That’s a huge number of votes, 65% of the vote had been cast. Under normal circumstances, like if this were a fair media, your state would have been called for Trump. Virginia was called with 10% of the vote, it turned out to be separated by 1%.I think we may have actually won Virginia, but that’s another battle. Michigan, we were ahead by 300,000 votes, Wisconsin, more. Georgia, we were down to 90% and ahead. What are the odds that they all switched overnight? They just switched by the next day.So the interesting thing here is that he’s playing into the other narrative that the media doesn’t determine the winner.The problem is that he’s he’s right, he’s just digging a deeper hole into reality.Virginia has gone blue for the past decade, and not by a little. The past 3 presidential elections leaned heavily red in the initial counting, because those small precincts all over the state are able to finish and report quickly. The much larger precincts and counties in Northern Virginia (Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William) as well as Richmond and Chesapeake are heavily blue and take much longer to finish processing. That last 1% of precincts has more than half the vote in the state. This is not unusual.With more mail-in ballots than usual, many states accepting the ballots for as long as a week after the election so long as they’re postmarked before the end of election day. It didn’t help that the GOP sabotaged the post office, either, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters.[4] Pennsylvania, in particular, and these legislatures, in particular, made it illegal to validate and count the ballots before the election was over causing this delay in counting.Nothing switched overnight. The ballots were already cast, they were just being counted.The media caused this complaint, and their “calling” of the election doesn’t mean anything, legally. The results are certified by the states and then they send electors to vote officially. Frankly, I think the media should cut the crap with this play-by-play election commentary since it plays right into the hands of those trying to erode trust in the Fourth Estate.We have calculated, and the evidence will show, that there were 682,770 mail-in ballots that were entered into your votes, in just Allegheny County and in Philadelphia, that were not observed by any single Republican.This would be news…if they did have evidence…which they don’t. They’ve repeatedly said they did, but haven’t presented ANY evidence of it. They even removed this part of it (the number of ballots keeps changing daily, as well) from their lawsuits two weeks ago.[5] They’re most likely taking the inch (they found that they were kept too far away) and taking a mile (THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO OBSERVE ANYTHING!).[6]Once again, they’ve presented zero, zip, zilch, evidence that 600,000+ ballots were verified without observation.I’ll give you one other enormously puzzling statistic. You sent out in the State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1,823, 148 absentee or mail-in ballots. You received back 1.4 million, approximately. However, in the count for President, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for that 700,000 difference between the number of ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count. That number, 2,589,242 was on your government website until yesterday. And yesterday, it was removed without explanation.There’s 3 things wrong with this statement:The first number cited was for the primaryThe larger number cited was for the 2020 presidential electionThe numbers weren’t removed from the website (You can see them here: Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results)I’ll repeat, Both of these different sets of numbers are still on the website and you can see them.Fact check: Pennsylvania mail-in ballot claim mixes primary, general election dataHe throws out a bunch of other numbers:22,686 mail-in ballots that were returned on the day they were mailed. (Pennsylvania allows you to request and submit in person early, no issues there)How about 32,591 were returned the day after they were mailed? (same as above)20,000 were returned before they were mailed (this comes from an “anonymous source” at epoch times (a right wing propaganda source) that posted screenshots of a datasource that’s not available and is formatted improperly from the site…My guess is that there was a placeholder or a clerical data entry error)8,021 ballots from dead people (but then he changes it to 30,000 in the next sentence) A number of news sources have looked into these finding no evidence outside of a few small incidents involving registered Republicans.[7]4,984 mail-in ballots that were never requested. (This is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania for parties to request ballots for people)[8]I can go on. Everything Giuliani brings up in his little tirade is either blatantly false, intentionally misleading, or easily explicable but easy to manipulate for people who refuse to listen.Before I continue, let me remind you: this hearing was held after nearly every single lawsuit was thrown out because there was no evidence of anything wrong. That even their assertion that the observers weren’t able to see things that they initially gave an injunction to allow the observers to be closer, was rejected on appeal because they weren’t restricted arbitrarily, they were restricted by a highly contagious virus that kills or cripples many that are infected.The “hearing” continues with different witnesses, mostly volunteers who were observers.Justin Kweder tries to establish they didn’t have meaningful access to observe things, but, again, the access was there, it was just not over people’s shoulders, and nothing was done in secret. His claims apply to all observers, so shenanigans could have occurred for Trump. Nevermind that the counters are also working in teams to prevent mistakes, as well…I find it disturbing that they’d allege that these volunteers would be able to, and willing to, stuff hundreds of thousands of ballots with hundreds of observers in the room.Kim Peterson makes similar allegations, but is inconsistent claiming that she was either 10, 15, 20, or 200 feet away from people, without mentioning that there were people all around the corral which were 10, 15, or 20 feet away from the people on the other side .She also reveals that there was closed circuit TV on so that the observers could see everything from a distance. She was disappointed in the quality — she just wanted to do her civic duty. The precious snowflake.Let’s summarize, briefly the first two. Some observers were far away from some of the counters…but there were cameras and monitors all over so that you can see everything.Leah Hoops says this:Not only was private grant money used from the center for tech and life owned by Google and Mark Zuckerberg, but pop-up voter sites were also approved. These pop-up voter sites were placed in heavily Democrat cities, including Chester and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, in which case the grant money from the CTCL was used to pay for electioneering. It was literally a one-stop shop. Walk in, apply, get your ballot, submit, and you were out the door. But where this didn’t take place was in heavily Republican and independent areas.The reality is that areas with lots of people tend to be blue, proportionately. Areas with fewer people proportionally tend to be red. If you were going to put a pop up location anywhere, why would you put it in the middle of a cow pasture?Her complaints might be true, but they’re founded in nonsense, like arguing that Gravity isn’t fair.We have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, which should be consideration enough to know that this is a very serious issueJust because you tell the truth doesn’t make it relevant. Her claims about not being able to observe were heard but dismissed after initially granting an injunction. The distance was not arbitrary, and accomodations were made for access.She also claims that they weren’t able to see the ballot signature validation room until an injunction was put in place. I found no record of any such injunction, unless she’s referring to the injunction that was put in place requiring them to be allowed within 6 feet, that was then rescinded on appeal.[9]Gregory Stenstrom did his best to be charming, but starts off saying it was his first time. He claims to have memorized the process manual, but he clearly skipped the training session.First, he claims they gave actual ballots instead of provisional ballots to people who claimed that they had requested mail in ballots. He doesn’t understand the process because if they had shown up as requesting mail in ballots, they would have been in the database. They didn’t, so they got actual ballots. Never mind this contradicts what other poll watchers saw regarding the treatment of black voters.[10]Then he claims that he wasn’t allowed into the counting center at first, which is valid because you have to be certified to be allowed in. Remember the chaos in at the Michigan counting facility when people not authorized to be there tried to storm in?He then claims there was a “forensically destructive process” with how the ballots were coming in…making claims that people “weren’t observed” and USB drives were being shuffled around. Ballots being moved around, votes being updated (50,000 for biden…because they organize the ballots and then run them…). He claimed that he spoke with a sheriff and the sheriff did nothing.He constantly makes emotional appeals and seems interested in the process…but rather than actually be a part of the process he’d rather “just ask questions.” — A key tactic in spreading conspiracy theories. His entire testimony seemed to revolve around ignorance of the process and drawing long conclusions from incomplete understandings of what was going on.The star witness seems to be Colonel Phil Waldron. He claimed no expertise or evidence or observation of the counting process, so he had no way to make any real claims about observers, but that didn’t stop him from continuing the claims the other witnesses made. He did claim expertise in information warfare that he took part in towards the end of his 30 year career.Consider a Colonel to be similar to a Project Manager at a very large company. They usually have several teams working underneath them and they’re either happy where they are, they’re not driven enough to advance, or not political enough…or they’re just not good enough. When you get to that point you’re in charge of people that know what they’re talking about and you just have to have a vague sense of it, it’s not required that you actually be or have the qualifications of a white hat hacker…and it shows in his testimony that he’s been at a distance from this stuff.He was clearly brought in by Trump's team and nearly everything he says is irrelevant and speculative. He claims, without evidence, for example, that 600,000 ballots were counted without observation. He insinuates, that the late Hugo Chavez had his undead hands on this election.I know there have been statements to the contrary but I personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first hand knowledge of Hugo Chavez’s family members who told him not to worry about the populous threat against Maduro’s election in Venezuela.Actual people that were able to analyze these things and verify the machines were trustworthy didn’t find anything…but Mr. Waldron personally could talk to people who guaranteed it. And let’s be clear, he’s tracing this “DNA” history back to before 2010…6 years before Trump won in Pennsylvania and many other states that use the same machines.All of this is similarly pointless conjecture since we have the paper ballots that we can audit.He says some things that make someone at all familiar with security wonder about his qualifications:And just so you probably all are aware, on 30 September, an election storage facility was robbed in your state. 30 USB devices were stolen and a laptop. Those USB devices more than likely had encryption devices and you just heard another previous witness talk about the nonstandard use of the USB storage devices.Yes, a facility was robbed. No, the USB devices didn’t have nonsensical “Encryption devices” on them, they had ballot layout templates for the machines to be programmed.[11] The machines are all sealed and those layouts are easily acquired elsewhere. The ballot layouts are also public information that are mailed out to everyone in advance of even the ballots being mailed out for remote voting.As a matter of fact, one of our white hat hackers previously discovered a malware that’s present on the servers that captures every log in and every password of every operator down to the precinct level that logs into one of these systems. That’s just like giving the password to your bank account out, putting it on the dark web. It’s not going to be there very long.There’s no context here. “Previously” could mean any time before hand. It looks like he hasn’t touched these things since 2010…They’ve most likely updated these servers since then, and if they found this “a malware” (No one talks like this in infosec circles) they probably fixed it…but we don’t know. But because of the way that he talks about these things it’s clear that he doesn’t have much insight and is simply trying to “just ask questions”.There’s a manufacturer specified rate of speed that a number of ballots can be imaged and processed. These spike anomalies in this chart really show where for us to look forensically to actually determine what happened with these votes. Our team has looked at these systems and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process, whether it’s mail in ballot manipulations, they can scan and allocate blank votes, whether it was a 70,000 votes left in the back room. There’s just lots of ways to interdict these systems.It’s like he doesn’t understand that:They don’t have to upload them as they run the ballotsThey can have more than one machine goingThey can release the reports whenever they feel like itMost of those votes are mail in ballots which haven’t been used to this extent in previous elections due to obvious circumstances, so this process is going to be differentThese aren’t votes coming in…these are votes that are being counted. There’s nothing unusual about this other than the fact that Pennsylvania didn’t allow early ballot counting to take place.This is just a purported “expert” “just asking questions” and sowing distrust.Gary Phelman says he has a “poll watcher’s certificate” that he says is good in every location in Philadelphia. He said he was denied entry. He claims it’s because his was yellow. He tries to claim they weren’t wearing masks, he definitely wasn’t wearing his bandana properly, however. A video of his encounter was here:A poll watcher in Philly was just wrongfully prevented from entering the polling place#StopTheSteal pic.twitter.com/iJTFtRk0Id— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 3, 2020Even though he is complaining about this now, it was cleared up pretty quickly:(Feeley is a spokesperson for the city commissioners) More on this can be seen here: Right-wing propagandists try to concoct a Philadelphia election scandalThis was an isolated incident that was cleared up on election day…yet here he is testifying about it.Dave Stisogis testified about a few things. He’s a lawyer and worked on campaigns for several candidates as well as running for office several times.First he complained about the processes and rule changes and how difficult it was for him to get people accredited (which applies to both sides).Then he talked about how he was observing the mail in ballot process about how they were separating the secrecy envelopes from the ballots with the cutting machines.His entire testimony can pretty much be summed up with this sentence:We had really no concept of what was going onThe Dunning-Kruger was strong with this one. He uses his credentials to imply that he is familiar with how it should work without establishing that he actually understands how it should work before saying flat out here that he doesn’t and has no intention of learning.At one point he called the fact that they had to “flatten out ballots” “obscene.” Which is a very…bizarre term for it. He says:People would come in with big armloads of ballots from the other room. Apparently with no providence, no explanation of where they came fromThis has been debunked to death. It’s a multistep process with observers at every step. Just because you can’t see everything doesn’t mean there isn’t meaningful access to it. If you did “have a concept of what was going on” you probably wouldn’t have expected it to be narrarrated to you.But there was absolutely no providence to what was going onHe likes the word providence.I had about 25 other affidavits from other folks that had joined me during the time that had been part of this that describe essentially the same thing over there in Allegheny County, most of whom were attorneys and had been versed on the comings and goings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which I might suggest, ultimately, the last decision in recanvassing when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately said that it doesn’t matter how far you’re away from the ballots because you don’t have the right to challenge anything, anyway. I read the opinion, and I said to myself, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just called off elections in the state of Pennsylvania.”Again, a sworn affidavit might mean that you’re telling the truth, but it doesn’t make it relevant. Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean that you have any insight into how elections work behind the scenes…and I’ve linked to the decision [9], and it doesn’t say what he claims.Next we have Elizabeth Preate Harvey who is full of softball concerns about the process, all of which are rehashes of what’s already been said and completely ephemeral.First, the Montgomery County Republican Committee was not provided meaningful view of the mail-in ballots at any time, despite our requests. Second, we were not provided with regular, detailed information about the mail-in ballots over the course of the election, despite our requests. Third, we still lack complete and detailed information about these ballots despite our written requests.I mean, this is, frankly all bullshit. Mail-in ballots are the same as in person ballots, except with secrecy envelopes. Sample ballots are mailed out prior to the mail in ballots.Second, as testified, you have observers all over the place. The “regular, detailed information” is likely not something that you’re entitled to, however much you wish you were.Third, Public information is available on the Pennsylvania secretary of state website.Since the election, we have received many calls and emails from Republicans with questions about whether their mail-in ballot was counted, expressing concerns that they didn’t request a mail-in ballot, but received one, anyway, that they were made to vote provisional when they shouldn’t have, that they have great concerns about the efficacy of this election.They can check that by calling their office. Clerks all over the country are friendly and very helpful.As touched on above, the Republican party likely requested one on their behalf which is completely legal in PennsylvaniaProvisional ballots are counted if they’re deemed legitimate to vote.In order for this country to have trust in the electoral process, elections must be viewed as open and transparent.I agree, and with social media, and media coverage, this has been the most transparent election in the history of the country.Julie Vahey was the Executive Director of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. She claims no one was allowed to see the mail in verification area…yet the lawsuits never make this assertion.[12]They claim they weren’t close enough to see what was going on. (Neither were the Democratic observers if that was the case). They eventually moved the tables to give better visibility, which she doesn’t mention…just complaints about the process.Over the last ten months, in my role, I’ve spoken to thousands of voters firsthand who have lost faith in the election processes and procedures in Montgomery County and across Pennsylvania as a whole.Over the last ten months…That’s waaaaay before Trump started complaining about mail in ballots. That’s back in February even before the lockdowns hit. That’s a really bizarre time frame.Next we have Barbara Sulitka who is basically an elderly voter and her daughter Cheryl Nudo and son-in-law Charles who is helping her testify. Barbara thinks her vote didn’t count since she got a print out that didn’t have Trump on it. Cheryl thinks scantron forms are a form of voter suppression because old people don’t get technology. (seriously).I’ve never gotten a receipt of who I voted for, and the only thing I could find is that if you did a provisional ballot they give you the id of that ballot so you can track it.[13]Then we have Olivia Jane Winters who told a long tale about how the Chief of elections might have voted twice.Finally we had Gloria Lee Snover who testified that Mail-in ballots were new and confusing…She claimed that they didn’t have access to observe them (which would have been illegal, so why they didn’t file suit about that is strange) and that, without evidence, claimed Democrats had more access and information than she did.Then Trump came on and rambled for 10 minutes adding no evidence to the table since he wasn’t there and had no visibility or expertise on the matter.They let the audience chant “Trump” in a cult-like manner for 5 minutes.The Chairman then pats himself on the back:I think what you’ve just heard guarantees that a hundred years from now, that this is the most important public hearing ever held by this Senate committee.and they lob it back to Trump’s lawyers, who botch the numbers to make it seem like they’re going to flip the election because of all of this pretend fraud.This fake hearing was more like cult-ritual. There were no Democrats present, no testimony from the election officials (many of whom were Republicans), no testimony from anyone but the select few that could try to confirm their biases.The people present were not under oath and some of their testimonies were different from their sworn affidavits. Many of them weren’t trained.The numbers provided were wrong. Their experts weren’t experts.The goal of this is to build up a wall of “Just Asking Questions” and pile on more and more innuendo to try to make it seem like there’s smoke, and therefore fire. Upon closer examination, it’s all just steam. These implications are like a hydra, designed so that if you cut one head off, 2 more pop in their place. Such that books have to be written that no one will read to debunk it all.This is like a travelling revival show. The purpose was to sell snake oil.The only thing that will come of it is more donations to help Trump pay back his debts.Some more viral misinformation debunking:Tracking Viral Misinformation About the 2020 ElectionFootnotes[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[7] Man arrested for voter fraud in Luzerne County[8] Your Pa. election questions answered: I received a mail-in ballot application but never requested one. What should I do?[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA

Why are gun owners so defensive when no one is trying to take away their guns? We just want criminals to not have guns. Shouldn’t gun owners be on our side?From They are coming for your guns by Murphy BarrettGun Banners often claim that nobody is trying to take guns away from anybody. They’re lying. Why do I say this? Well, let’s look at their past performance.Because:Gun control advocates keep pointing to places like the UK or Australia as examples, places in which confiscation has occurred beforeSome jurisdictions in the US have attempted outright confiscation beforeReading gun control laws, it is clear that:The people writing them know very little about gunsThat they are clearly meant to restrict as many guns as possibleThe eventual goal is a total banGun control advocates have outright lied in the past about guns to get them bannedGun control creep keeps making more and more things illegalThen, there’s what they’ve had to say on the matter themselves.Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1995 DISARM THE CITIZENRY. BUT NOT YET.Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States“Only the police should have handguns.”“When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps” Enough is Enough, MTV, April 19, 1994Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Associated Press, November 18, 1993“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” 60 Minutes, CBS, February 5, 1995“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” United Nations Conference on Small Arms, 2001Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont, CaliforniaWilliam Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13AJan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride ParadeMajor Owens, U.S. Representative from New York“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (Originally named “The National Council to Ban Handguns”)” …. the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” 60 Minutes interview“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign)“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Handguns in America, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, October 1997“We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. …Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns….” Sarah Brady speech to the Women’s National Democratic Club, Sept. 21, 1993“To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” Tampa Tribune, Oct 21, 1993Jim Brady“[Handguns] For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.” Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy“Handguns should be outlawed.”Bernard Parks, Chief of Police, L.A. California“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for a show or someone having it in a collection.” Reuters, June 9, 2000Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center“ … immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime CommissionsAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” Board of Directors in September 1976 – see national ACLU policy #47Rosie O’Donnell, TV talk show hostess“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” The Rosie O’Donnell Show April 19, 1999Violence Policy Center (VPC)“[gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer … licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004Alan M. Dershowitz, Lawyer and Frankfurter Professor of Law“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.” The Crimson Daily, April 9, 2003Michael Gardner, President of NBC News“There is no reason for anyone in this country … to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” USA Today, January 16, 1992“In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one.” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991Editorial, Los Angeles Times“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safe.” Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Dec. 28, 1993“…The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials.” Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us, Dec. 10, 1993Jack E. White, Time Magazine national correspondent“Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one.” Washington Times, May 8, 1999Gary Wills, syndicated columnist“Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other.” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1981George Napper, Atlanta public-safety commissioner“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.” U.S. News and World ReportJanet Reno, former U.S. attorney general“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Addressing a 1984 B’nai B’rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of MiamiMarion Barry, former mayor, Washington D.C.“Our neighbors in Virginia are just as responsible for these killings as the criminals are because they won’t pass strong gun [control] legislation.” This Week With David Brinkley, ABC TV, March 19, 1989 (Ed: The claim being that citizens of Virginia were responsible for murders committed in Washington D.C.)Should we not take them at their word? When they consistently admit total bans are the goal, supported by increasingly draconian laws that fail to get guns out of the hands of criminals, what other purpose can gun control serve?Obviously it can’t be “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, because that’s not what gun control does. It can’t be “making sure no innocent people get murdered”, because nothing in human history has put a stop to that, we have only one end state ever explicitly sought by gun controllers. A total ban on private ownership of firearms.Source Gun Facts | Quotes Concerning Gun ControlAnd here are some gems from Quora itself.Of course this question is anonymous.And in a move that shocks no one, a Californian wants to straight out ban “assault weapons”, and steal the ones you already, under the guise of a “buyback”.Swalwell on why he says we should ban & buy back assault weaponsLook, Swalwell is a fucking moron. Buyback? Fuckoff.The guns were never owned by the Feds to begin with. You cannot “buy back” something you never owned in the first place.“Buying” something is a voluntary exchange, where one party exchanges goods or services with another, for money. Holding a gun to people’s heads and taking their property involuntarily, even if you compensate them monetarily, is NOT buying, it’s robbery.Further, there is no goddamn fucking way for such a program to actually pay anything even remotely close to market value for 300 million odd guns. Which means the “compensation” will be naught but a cruel joke.“Semi-automatic assault weapons”? Screw guns, I’m going to beat this idiot to death with a dictionary.“A child’s right to learn without fear and to come home after school and to live is greater than any other right…” You know what, asshat? I actually agree with you. Which is why I want big angry men with real machine guns ready to protect our kids from some malefactor who wants to murder them. But your plan? Your “Gun Free Zones”? Is this.“I don’t accept the premise that an assault weapon is covered by the second amendment” Holy fucking Christ, I agree with this moron again. Because “assault weapons” are not a goddamn thing that exist. Define for me, in specific technical detail, what makes an “Assault Weapon”, and how it is different from every other rifle. How do I make what? What caliber, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, accuracy, what operating mechanism? Define the goddamn thing as something other than “Whatever gun I want to ban this week”. So you’re right, fucknuts, “Assault Weapons” aren’t covered, just like unicorns aren’t. But any and all actual arms that exist are, and I don’t give a unicorn’s fart if you “don’t accept” that, it’s written in plain if archaic English. Learn to fucking read! Maybe you should go back to school and retake English Comprehension.The only good thing that can possibly come from this idiocy, is that we have a shining golden shit of an example that They are coming for your guns. Really.Other gems.Go on. Tell me again that nobody is trying to ban guns. Look me right in the eye and lie to my face.Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.”-Gaslighting - WikipediaOn Gunsplaining and GaslightingFor further reading:Bearing ArmsGun Control, de-facto bans, Common Sense, and TrustJust One LifeFirst Guns, then KnivesAlways One More

If you are thinking of the canonical “small claim” action—a civil case involving a limited amount in controversy and no request for an injunction or anything like that—these may be heard in district court (or in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, municipal court).¹ This is a “non-record” court (meaning, there is no stenographer, and there is a right of appeal de novo on both the facts and the law), presided over by a “magisterial district judge” (this office was formerly known as “district justice” and you may on occasion still hear people refer to “district justice” or “DJ court”).Generally, a district court action is commenced by filing a complaint on the official form for the same. See Pa. R.C.P. M.D.J. Nos. (“DJ Rules”) 303–304.² You can obtain the form from the district court (a copy of the civil complaint form is also available here and the landlord-tenant form here).³ There will be a filing fee, depending on the amount in controversy, but if you cannot afford to pay, you may fill in an affidavit regarding your financial circumstances and if it appears that you would have trouble affording the fee, the court may waive it. The fee will be added to the judgment if the plaintiff wins the case.The complaint has to be served on the defendant. The court will normally attempt service by certified mail, but if this does not work, you may need to engage a constable to effect service. DJ Rules 307–313.The process issued by the court will contain a “hearing date,” but in pretty much every district court I have ever worked with, that initial “hearing date” is actually a placeholder—a deadline for the defendant to do something. A defendant who wishes to contest a district court complaint is required to notify the court of “intent to defend,” preferably five days before the date on the initial notice. DJ Rule 318. If they do so, the court will notify the plaintiff, and a new hearing date is usually set. However, your best source for scheduling matters will be the individual court where you want to file your case.For the case to proceed, the Commonwealth must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. There’s no really easy way to summarise this, but if the defendant is an individual resident of Pennsylvania or a company regularly doing business in the Commonwealth, jurisdiction will exist. If this is not the case, you will need to see a local lawyer for an opinion as to jurisdiction.“Venue” means which court you file the case in. In general, you need to file the case in the district (typically a group of townships within a county or wards within a city) where “(1) the individual [defendant] may be served”—i.e. lives or works—“or (2) the cause of action arose, or (3) a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose.” Magisterial districts are set by the president judge of the county court of common pleas and probably can be located by consulting the county’s website, but the district court staff themselves will also be able to tell you what their geographical jurisdiction is. A case filed in the wrong venue is subject to being dismissed without prejudice. You can re-file in the right court, but you’ll be out your filing fee and some time and aggravation.Hearings before district court judges are relatively informal. You may be represented by an attorney (or, in district court only, a non-attorney “representative”, see DJ Rule 207.1). This is your chance to present evidence and legal argument.⁴ A defendant who fails to give timely notice of intent to defend may not be afforded a hearing whether or not the plaintiff shows up.⁵Once the district judge has entered a judgment, either party may, within 30 days, file a request for appeal de novo to the county court of common pleas. At this point, you probably should be looking at legal advice, because the de novo appeal is for all intents and purposes a regular civil action with the attendant requirement of particularity in pleading, availability of discovery and pre-trial disposition such as summary judgment, and a much greater degree of formality.⁶ See Chapter 10 of the minor court rules. The prothonotary of the county will have available a notice of appeal form if you need one, but you will be on your own as far as writing up a complaint, answer, or other appropriate pleading.Notes:¹ See also the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts website here.Minor courts, or special courts, are the first level of Pennsylvania's judiciary. These courts are presided over by magisterial district judges (MDJs) and municipal court judges. MDJs do not have to be lawyers, but they are required to pass a qualifying exam. Philadelphia Municipal Court General Division judges need to be lawyers, but Traffic Division judges do not. Each court has its own elected judges. In Allegheny County, the Pittsburgh Municipal Court is staffed by Allegheny County magisterial district judges and the complement is included in the total of 526 MDJs.A list of DJs is here: Magisterial District Judges. (To find Philadelphia or Pittsburgh MCs, start here.) Click on “Show Details” for addresses and phone numbers.² You probably should read this entire chapter of court rules before proceeding.³ These and additional forms are on this web page.⁴ Needless to say, as to whether you have a legal argument, the best source is going to be a lawyer.⁵ The rule relating to default reads in its entirety:Rule 319.Failure of a Party to Appear at the Hearing.A. If a plaintiff who has been given notice of the defendant’s intention to defend does not appear at the hearing, but the defendant does appear, the magisterial district judge shall enter judgment for the defendant or continue the case for cause. If the plaintiff does not appear at the hearing and the defendant does, but the plaintiff has not been given notice of the defendant’s intention to defend, the case shall be continued.B. If the defendant does not appear at the hearing, the magisterial district judge shall, whether or not the plaintiff appears, enter judgment for the plaintiff or continue the case for cause. If judgment is entered for the plaintiff, the magisterial district judge shall assess damages for the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled if it is for a sum certain or which can be made certain by computation, but if it is not, the damages shall be assessed by the magisterial district judge at a hearing at which the issues shall be limited to the amount of the damages. If such a hearing is to be held, the magisterial district judge shall give the defendant written notice of the time and date of the hearing, which shall be not less than ten (10) days from the date of the notice.Not all DJs will follow this rule to the letter. I appeared for a plaintiff once, and even though the defendant did not show up (thus, supposedly, entitling my client to a default), the court wasn’t satisfied that the plaintiff was not there either and dismissed the action. There is really nothing you can do about this except file a de novo appeal. You might theoretically file a petition for certiorari, see DJ Rule 1009, but I think most common pleas judges would instead of remanding the case allow the defendant to object to the default. (See this answer for more.)⁶ Common pleas courts will often refer smaller cases (whether or not they originated as district court actions) for “arbitration” if they only seek money damages in an amount less than $ 50,000. Arbitration is similar to a district-court hearing (it is a non-record proceeding) and is held before a panel of attorneys who are appointed by the court. Any party may, however, following the arbitration, file a demand for trial as of right.