Affidavit General: 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.

437 in Michigan, introduced by Plaintiffs as - and this is a direct quote from lawyer admitting the evidence - “mostly false and spam. “When pressed by the judge about how many were supportable, the lawyer presenting them responded “none of them. “Defense didn't have to say a single word about them to have them tossed, Trump’s own legal team acknowledged they were false right up front.An affidavit by itself is generally worthless in court. But these affidavits are comical. “I believe Trump won,” was the full text of one actually submitted affidavit in Michigan, cited directly by the judge in one decision.In one case, their witness - a conservative blogger - was convicted of fraud related to a charity for homeless veterans, and has outstanding potential identity theft and claims of presenting false credentials and affidavits previously. She asks to trust her she is Military Intelligence.She was identified because she copied and pasted her linked in profile word for word into the court document.I mean sure, if her complaint had any actual basis under which it could be true, of course you’d still listen and look at actual evidence.But her claims aren't technologically sound either, and ignore basic computer science. She had made trivially disprovable claims.But, podcasting platforms continue to air her voice, making those claims to picket the money.Used to be you saw crazies in use net newsgroups, on soapboxes in the park. Now, it's a for profit endeavor.

Not likely.Back up a minute. The people making these claims are using scary sounding terms like “sworn affidavit”. But what does that mean, really?It means that someone wrote down a claim including saying that it’s true then had it notarized. And what does that mean?It means that the notary certifies that it was really that person who signed the affidavit.That plus $5 will get you a bad cup of coffee.It’s not perjury to randomly make a false claim. It’s not perjury to randomly make a false claim and get it notarized.It becomes perjury when you enter the claim as evidence under oath. You know, in court.So take the guy who apparently invented the claims of voter fraud by USPS in PA and did the affidavit thing.Did he commit perjury by making the claim verbally? No.Did he commit perjury by filling out the affidavit? No.Did he commit perjury by getting it notarized? No. All that does is provide a certification that it was really him who signed it. It says nothing about the truth of the content.Did he commit perjury by talking about having a “sworn affidavit?” No.Would he have committed perjury by lying to the USPS Inspector General folks? Probably not, but he likely would have violated USC 1001 about “lying to a Federal agent.”Would he have committed perjury by lying about what he said to the inspectors? No.Basically, the only part of this whole charade that could put him in legal trouble is if he had lied to the inspectors.