Staci Burk and the case of the shredded ballots to be considered by SCOTUS tomorrow.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm fairly certain they have already submitted sworn affidavit which Fall under perjury if she knowingly lied

The bar for perjury is that you knowingly lie under oath or on a statement of equal value.

If these people are simply mistaken or are plain old stupid then it's not perjury. Just a mistake.

Seriously, people place way too much value on affidavits when it comes to cases like this. For a non expert witness they really just amount to somebody's opinion or interpretation.

Lying and plain old stupid isn't really going to work out in your favor.

But perhaps you yourself could convince a judge that you were just plain old stupid, and not lying under oath and the threat of perjury.
The excuse "Plain old stupid" is NOT seen in court to excuse anything looking like perjury. You might be able to pull it off though.
"Your honor, my client was just really stupid, so that means he didn't commit perjury".
Like that is going to work out.
Get real for once. Funny though.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's an odd statement.

It either did happen or did not happen

a reply to: dashen

No, the people making these claims BELIEVE it happened. This is what the evidentiary process is supposed to resolve.

Frankly I think it's nuts that people are still Q-cumbering and krakening the whole 'sworn affidavit' route after the comedy s*** show of Wood, Powell and Giuliani and the big zero that they were able to accomplish. Remember them? Me too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


dude, your the one missing the point,
dashen said people take perjuring themselves seriously.
you said a sworn statement.

i showed you that even a unsworn statement can bring perjury charges and that a judge or jury may or may not believe that you thought that it was true in ether case. just because you say something and swear and claim to believe it or don't swear to it and believe it, doesn't mean every judge/ jury is gonna believe you. at best it's a 50 50 shot.

as dashen said, most people take giving a affidavit sworn or not seriously. especially those that do so of their own free will.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
dude, your the one missing the point,
dashen said people take perjuring themselves seriously.
you said a sworn statement.

It isn't perjury until someone challenges it in court. You know, the place where legal stuff happens. FFS, this isn't hard to grasp, or is it?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lol, it isn't murder til you're convicted.

Amirite?

a reply to: dashen

Pretty much yeah, ask The O.J.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

dershowitz did this.

originally posted by: dashen
dershowitz did this.

He did some other stuff too, ****ing pervert.

I think it's NUTS that people still believe Biden got over 80 Million Votes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: dashen

No, the people making these claims BELIEVE it happened. This is what the evidentiary process is supposed to resolve.

Frankly I think it's nuts that people are still Q-cumbering and krakening the whole 'sworn affidavit' route after the comedy s*** show of Wood, Powell and Giuliani and the big zero that they were able to accomplish. Remember them? Me too.

I will pick my nose and wipe it off under my mantle.
a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: TexasTruth
I would really love for something like this to blow up and expose the fraud.

What if there was no fraud?

Mind. Blown.

If you believe that, then I agree your mind is blown.

Perhaps they operate on a quantum level where time is irrelevant?
Whatever it is let's stop discussing with anyone who states they don't need to read, listen because well insert regurgitated Alinsky babble here..
I did take the time and am glad she didn't hand it over. He seemed too desperate.
I have my doubts about SC she should turn it over to the military. This is their dept.
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: dashen
"I'm fairly certain they have already submitted sworn affidavit which Fall under perjury if she knowingly lied"

No, a sworn affidavit must be attested to in court.

No, wrong again... they must be done properly, but that is all. Once this is done, it is a lawful affidavit.

You'd figure you'd know this by now with all the Sidney Bowel affidavits that didn't hold up once they got to court.

The affidavits were never ruled on, they were simply ignored.

But such a response from someone whose ATS status line is "Wacko LARPer from the future." is ... unsurprising.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It isn't perjury until someone challenges it in court. You know, the place where legal stuff happens. FFS, this isn't hard to grasp, or is it?

I guess it is, because you are failing spectacularly.

Perjury is lying under oath. You can commit it by lying under oath in open court, or on a lawful affidavit.

But, like murder, it does not have to be done in court, and you don't have to be prosecuted for it in order to have committed it.

www.dcpresswire.com... epresenting-herself/

So it looks like Staci Burk's case was denied. I have no idea what has happened with the shredded ballots.

dockets.justia.com...:2021cv00757/1265616

What's strange, is that she asked for a restraining order on the audit, as well as making Cyber Ninjas one of the defendants. Can anyone here make sense of that request? She supposedly has shredded ballots from Maricopa County that were found a day or two after there was a court order for them to be released to the Senate for full forensic audit, as well as other evidence of election fraud.

Staci Burk also tried to intervene in the case that the Democrats had going against the audit, but the judge didn't hear her claims saying that she didn't have standing it the case.

On a side note, I am aware that Staci recently spent some time in the hospital for "stress".

a reply to: IndieA

Her Facebook and claims are really confusing. Then there is stuff about her stolen phone but pics of it were sent to her from DC and something about escaping security guards while they were sleeping and that the audit in AZ is a scam. Really don't know what's going on with this actually.

originally posted by: Irishhaf


Then fine lets prove it beyond a reasonable doubt yes?

It's for the people making the allegation to prove it, not for the accused to disprove.

It's not rocket science.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dashen
When you have your affidavit signed by a notary that is your sworn statements before ever sits in front of a court officer or judge.

Generally the first line of affidavit States your name and under penalty of perjury.

Man you really don't want this fraud to come out do you?

There is no wide spread fraud, that's all Q-cumber LARP'ing.

Ah, yes. "Q-cumber" and "LARPing."

"Communist Democrat Handbook Of Snappy Comebacks And One-Liners Useful For Deflection" snappy comebacks #8 - "Q-cumber, and #10 - LARP."

You really really need to get some new material.