Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,949 posts, read 12,753,648 times
Reputation: 10606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genz
Once again it was not an official court hearing and nobody testified under oath. Anyone can say what he or she thinks is true but it's irrelevant to anything. If you think some random meeting in a hotel is going to get you to the Supreme court I say you have no idea how anything works.
Apparently you failed to remember what you'd said in your comment that I was responding to.
In your comment that was I responding to, you said.."A person does not testify by phone."
My response to that comment was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
Where do they not testify by phone? This hearing isn't a court hearing, but, courts in PA, as well as other states, do allow telephonic testimony.
Maybe it is yourself that you need to worry about with having "no idea how anything works".
"nobody testified under oath"
I wasn't watching but did they use witnesses affidavits? A statement made on an affidavit, that is signed by a notary, is the same as being under oath. Lie on an affidavit and the person lying can be charged with perjury.
Apparently you failed to remember what you'd said in your comment that I was responding to.
In your comment that was I responding to, you said.."A person does not testify by phone."
My response to that comment was...
Maybe it is yourself that you need to worry about with having "no idea how anything works".
"nobody testified under oath"
I wasn't watching but did they use witnesses affidavits? A statement made on an affidavit, that is signed by a notary, is the same as being under oath. Lie on an affidavit and the person lying can be charged with perjury.
Out of curiosity, did anyone say any detailed information about what they saw directly with their own two eyes in those affidavits?
Or are they based on hearsay? Because if it's the later, they could be telling the truth but their testimony has no teeth so to speak if they don't have direct experience to the claims they are making.
I.E. Joe owes money to Debbie. Debbie goes to the court and tells the judge that her friend Ruth told her that Joe stated he won't pay back the money to Debbie.
This is hearsay and has no weight in a court of law.
From my understanding, a lot of these affidavits fall into a similar pattern as the example above
"nobody testified under oath"
I wasn't watching but did they use witnesses affidavits? A statement made on an affidavit, that is signed by a notary, is the same as being under oath. Lie on an affidavit and the person lying can be charged with perjury.
LOL. Meanwhile in reality....
The "affidavits" were not signed, nor swore under. They were online responses, and apparently in the fine print was "you are signing this under affidavit". In reality these are absolutely not enforceable. And Judges pointed this out after one of the attorneys claimed these were the ones left after they filtered out all the one they could tell were false.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,949 posts, read 12,753,648 times
Reputation: 10606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel
Out of curiosity, did anyone say any detailed information about what they saw directly with their own two eyes in those affidavits?
Or are they based on hearsay? Because if it's the later, they could be telling the truth but their testimony has no teeth so to speak if they don't have direct experience to the claims they are making.
I.E. Joe owes money to Debbie. Debbie goes to the court and tells the judge that her friend Ruth told her that Joe stated he won't pay back the money to Debbie.
This is hearsay and has no weight in a court of law.
From my understanding, a lot of these affidavits fall into a similar pattern as the example above
I haven't been paying all that much attention over the past while to know if they'd released affidavits showing what's on them. Perhaps someone who has can answer your question. Personally though, I'd never make a statement and sign a sworn affidavit based on hearsay evidence.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,949 posts, read 12,753,648 times
Reputation: 10606
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
LOL. Meanwhile in reality....
The "affidavits" were not signed, nor swore under. They were online responses, and apparently in the fine print was "you are signing this under affidavit". In reality these are absolutely not enforceable. And Judges pointed this out after one of the attorneys claimed these were the ones left after they filtered out all the one they could tell were false.
Okay good, you've actually seen the affidavits. Perhaps you can show all of them to us.
the trump campaign's attorney admitted in court before a maricopa county judge that they had affidavits, submitted under penalty of perjury, that were blatantly false and the rest they had no idea if they were legit or not.
Covers a lot of it. But perjury for a sworn affidavit requires it to be relevant, and knowingly false. And all to often Trumps teams affidavits have not been either as per the judges. And good luck getting a e-signature THAT COULD BE FROM ANYONE to be used against the person who is claimed in the affidavit.
Why were the audience laughing when the man said there were 570,000 votes spiked for biden and 3,200 for Trump?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.