What Does An Affidavit Look Like: Fill & Download for Free

I see no-one bothered to look up the U.S. evidence code, even though you very kindly provided a link (thank you!)Hearsay is covered by Article VIII of the Federal Rules of EvidenceIt’s defined in Rule 801(c)(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.Obviously an affidavit is not “testimony” and is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It’s hearsay by definition. It doesn’t matter if it reflects the affiant’s direct knowledge.So, let’s make it clear - anything that isn’t direct testimony, in court, generally where the adverse party has an opportunity to cross-examine, is hearsay.But you’re right. We have to look at exceptions to that rule, and there are a lot of them. Most hearsay is actually admissible in court, so let’s look at how affidavits are treated.Rule 802 covers the general treatment of hearsayHearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:a federal statute;these rules; orother rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.The commentary provides several rules that allow affidavits: motions, summary judgment applications and temporary restraining orders.Under those provisions, yes, an affidavit could be used for a temporary restraining order in a voting case, but not an order to disqualify ballots. For example, ballots are eventually destroyed and a person could get an order to preserve them. That’s temporary. However, orders striking ballots are final - affidavit evidence won’t do.Now, let’s go to 803, which covers exceptions to the hearsay rule. As I’ve said, there are a lot of them in addition to statutory rules. 803 largely codifies common law rules regarding the hearsay exception. As you can see, there are 23 major exceptions, many with sub-exceptions.However, 803 says nothing about affidavits. Not one damn thing. That’s not surprising. Although affidavits are treated for some purposes as sworn testimony, they are not the equivalent of sworn testimony.Rule 804 might apply, but only if the person who make an affidavit is otherwise unavailable to testify. “Dying” is a good reason.So, what went on here.Affidavits can get your foot in the door. What the Trump campaign was trying to do was to convince the court they had a matter that was urgent and demanded the court’s attention prior to a permanent event that would make the proceeding moot, in this case certification of the vote totals.So, what the Trump campaign was looking for was an “evidentiary hearing”, essentially an opportunity to give sworn testimony under oath before a judge in order to prove their case. The affidavits were filed in order to convince the judge that such a hearing was worthwhile, that there would be evidence later on. Given the urgency, it was impossible to allow things like cross-examination on the affidavits. Instead, the witnesses would be called to court to give their testimony in person and be cross-examined there.But, at what was essentially a “show cause” hearing, the judge was unimpressed. None of the affidavits seemed to indicate there was any fraud going on. Instead, they just catalogued irregularities. For example, someone testified they saw someone running a ballot through a machine before the polls opened. The court knew that one - the machines have to be tested before you start putting votes in them.The court then looked at the relief being asked for. In Pennsylvania, it was disqualification of all the votes. The judge then asked straight out if there was any fraud. The lawyers said no. The judge then made it clear that seven million votes weren’t going to be disqualified over minor irregularities of a few hundred or even a few thousand ballots.

Advise people about the effect of the law in their particular situation.Draft documents like contracts, security agreements and commercial letters of creditPerform due diligence for buyers to ensure that the sellers have good title to the property being sold (e.g. checking for existing mortgages and liens against a property)Drafting pleadings for use in court actionsPreparing for and appearing in court by researching law and preparing documents, affidavits, witnesses and briefs of law for the courtReviewing and disclosing documentary evidence and performing depositions of witnesses and parties in advance of trial.Assessing the strength of their client's position in a dispute and giving advice about settlement.Dealing with clients, directing staff, court offices and government offices.

The United States pretty much look like my home province of Ontario in this respect. No-one is “entitled” to a trial, particularly in a superior court. In order to get one, you have to pass several hurdles. While experienced lawyers can usually get there if they want to, laypersons often fall afoul of one of the rules you have to follow to get to a trial where you get to call actual live witnesses. Ontario has actually added another layer recently. However, the United States works pretty much the same.So, in order to get your “day in court,” you need to pass these hurdles:Is the case frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process? If, on the face of the statement of claim you file, the case is so ridiculous as to essentially be unarguable no matter what evidence you present, then it can be dismissed without the defendant having to do anything. “Frivolous” means actually no chance of success whatsoever because you’ve sued for something you can’t sue for, you’ve put forward facts that can’t possibly be tested in evidence, or you’re asking for relief the court simply can’t grant. “Vexatious” means a case you’re filing simply to make life difficult for the defendants. “Abuse of process” means a case that you’ve tried to argue elsewhere, or have actually lost in the past.If you pass that hurdle, the defendants can move for a “judgment on the law.” The court will assume everything you’ve put in your claim is true and then determine, by applying the law alone, whether it supports a judgment. If it does not, then your claim is dismissed.Okay, now you have an arguable case. It’s time for “discovery.” You are required to prepare an affidavit listing all relevant documents and to provide copies to the defendants. The defendants are then entitled to depose you and question you about the case. If you dodge or skip this, the defendant can move to have your claim struck.Summary judgment. Let’s assume you have a valid case, and that you’ve set it out well enough to survive initial challenges. At this point, the defendant can move to file affidavits and ask that your case be decided in a summary manner. If, based on affidavit evidence the court can find no real controversy in the facts, they can rule for the defendant right then and there.If you get through all this, congratulations, you’re entitled to a trial.If you look at the Trump election fraud cases, for example, they all fail at stage 1 or stage 2. In most cases, the lawyers for Trump asked for relief the court wasn’t allowed to give. In other cases, the facts agreed to didn’t support the claims the Trump campaign was making.