Michigan Pre Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

All the hand recounts in places that used supposedly corrupt or compromised voting machines showed the same results as the machines.All the affidavits alleging fraud have been so ridiculous, so kindergarten, so utterly laughable that Trump-appointed Republican judges have laughed them out of court. Like the affidavit where a person swore she saw fraud in Edison County, Michigan. There is no Edison County, Michigan.[1] This is pre-school-level lying.Trump’s lawyers, including Rudy Giuliana, have testified under oath in court there was no widespread election fraud.[2] [3]Trump’s attorney general Bill Bar says no election fraud.[4]I mean, when the President’s own lawyer and the President’s own attorney general say no fraud, why on earth would righties believe there’s fraud?Footnotes[1] Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Alleged Voter Fraud in Nonexistent County[2] In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud[3] As Trump's election lawsuits fizzle, Giuliani goes to court. It doesn't get better[4] US attorney general finds 'no voter fraud that could overturn election'

Signing an affidavit is prosecutable only if the signer intentionally lied or knowingly presented false information.Apparently, the judges did not find these affidavits credible evidence of widespread voter fraud because most of the people were offering opinions about irregularities they thought they saw that could have led to fraud, many times because they just didn’t understand the voting process.From Forbes, Trump Continues To Share Debunked Voter Fraud Affidavit That Mixes Up Michigan And Minnesota:The Trump campaign and its allies claim they’ve amassed hundreds of signed affidavits proving voter fraud and irregularities, part of their quest to prevent states from certifying President-elect Joe Biden as the winner. But judges say many of these documents are vague, unrelated to fraud or rooted in fundamental misunderstandings of how vote-counting works. Judges have thrown out lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia because their evidence — based largely on affidavits from Republican poll-watchers — was too thin.Many of these affidavits were signed by zealous Trump loyalists, primed by the President to see evidence of fraud everywhere in the election process. They were duped. Unless it is a clear case of perjury or intentionally presenting false information, it would not serve the judicial system to prosecute every person who signed an affidavit based on what they thought, even if they were mistaken.More on prosecution for lying in an affidavit:From Evidence? Hearsay? Voter fraud claims in affidavits, explained:By definition, an affidavit is “a sworn statement in writing made under oath or on affirmation before a person authorized to do so under the law.” But as Detroit attorney David Ayyash says -- that doesn’t mean they are accurate.“In a lawsuit, if a witness offers sworn testimony, that is considered evidence. But the finder of fact, usually a jury -- but sometimes a judge -- determines the credibility of that evidence,” Ayyash said. “So technically - yes - an affidavit is a form of evidence, but that doesn’t mean it’s credible.”Lying in an affidavit is a violation of law and a person who is caught lying could face perjury charges. But it’s a bit more complicated.Affidavits that contain vague or second-hand accounts may be hard to prove as false. There are also many scenarios where a witness just misunderstands the situation or is mistaken in what they believe they heard or saw.For instance, in the Trump vs. Wayne County case cited above, Judge Kenny wrote in his ruling, “Plaintiffs’ affiants did not have full understanding of TCF absent ballot tabulation.” He said if plaintiffs’ affiants would have participated in pre-election training sessions, they would have had a better understanding of the process. Many claims could be easily explained by election officials.So technically - yes - if a person signs an affidavit with false information, they could be charged with perjury. But proving the person willfully lied can prove to be quite difficult in many cases.

The mechanics of tapping a cell phone are the same whether it’s a subscribed number or a pre-paid “burner.” The difficulty lies in presenting probable cause for the intercept in the affidavit in support of the wiretap order.To obtain a wiretap order (usually referred to as a “Title III” in the Federal system), you have to provide evidence of probable cause to believe that a particular instrument is being used by particular individuals in furtherance of particular crimes. This is usually done by using call records and surveillance.Since the point of using a burner is to toss the phone after a short period of time or a small number of calls, it becomes difficult to establish probable cause and courts are reluctant to issue “roving” orders which allow intercepting any number the subject of the intercept is identified as using.WAR STORY ALERT:In the early ‘90s, I was involved in a wiretap investigation with the Detroit Field Division REDRUM Task Force, which focused on drug-trafficking-related murders. The group we were targeting was known to use multiple cell phones (burners hadn’t been invented yet, but the cellular phone companies would still take cash payments) and pay phones.The REDRUM case agents obtained the first roving order issued in the Eastern District of Michigan, which enabled us to go up on any instrument as soon as it was identified and we could get the requisite equipment installed. This included multiple Ameritech and Cellular One phones as well as, at least, one pay phone which was located in a boarding house in Northwest Detroit.The case resulted in dismantling a violent crack cocaine trafficking group and clearing a half-dozen open murder cases.