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

originally posted by: bluesman462002
I think it's NUTS that people still believe Biden got over 80 Million Votes.

It's even more nuts to Q-cumber cult.

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

Which caries no weight unless upheld in court under cross. But you knew this.

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

Where is it determined if it's perjury?

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
You really really need to get some new material.

Why? It still applies 100% to the wackos who believe this stuff. Remember when JFK Jr. was going to come back and sterp der sterl? I do. This is the level of stupid that's out there.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"No, wrong again... they must be done properly, but that is all. Once this is done, it is a lawful affidavit."

Which caries no weight unless upheld in court under cross. But you knew this.

Your claim was that an affidavit must be attested to in court to be a valid affidavit. I proved you wrong. You deflect (again).

You also claimed that these affidavits were disproven, which I also pointed out was flat wrong - because they were never even considered, they were just tossed en masse because orange man bad..

But you knew that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Perjury is lying under oath. You can commit it by lying under oath in open court, or on a lawful affidavit."

Where is it determined if it's perjury?

Obtuse much?

There is a difference between committing perjury, and being prosecuted for - or convicted of - it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Your claim was that an affidavit must be attested to in court to be a valid affidavit.

It must be subjected to cross. Otherwise it's meaningless. I believe and attest that you forged ballots for Trump, what forum would you like to dispute my claim?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
There is a difference between committing perjury, and being prosecuted for - or convicted of - it.

Unless you are charged and convicted you didn't commit perjury, that's how the law works.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Your claim was that an affidavit must be attested to in court to be a valid affidavit.

It must be subjected to cross. Otherwise it's meaningless.

Nope. It only must be subjected to cross if it is introduced as evidence in a legal proceeding.

None of the thousands of affidavits attesting to malfeasance, suspicious behavior, and outright criminal acts were subjected to cross, they were dismissed without consideration in violation of the rules of legal procedure.

I believe and attest that you forged ballots for Trump, what forum would you like to dispute my claim?

1. Your claim is a bald faced lie. It is now in dispute.

2. Your claim is not in affidavit form, it is not sworn testimony in open court, or in written form signed and sworn to in the presence of a notary.

Regardless, since you are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to prove its veracity.

Do you get tired of looking foolish?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Nope. It only must be subjected to cross if it is introduced as evidence in a legal proceeding.

There's no point of making an affidavit unless you are going to employ it legally.

None of the thousands of affidavits attesting to malfeasance, suspicious behavior, and outright criminal acts were subjected to cross, they were dismissed without consideration in violation of the rules of legal procedure.

Sure, sounds like sour grapes again because 'yard signs'.

1. Your claim is a bald faced lie. It is now in dispute.

Nice, let me know when it's perjury.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Unless you are charged and convicted you didn't commit perjury, that's how the law works.

Again, this is simply false based on the definition of perjury.

That said, it looks like I was wrong on one count - the legal definition does state that it must be done in the course of some judicial proceeding, so, someone who lies in an affidavit, even if not used in any legal proceeding, while still a valid affidavit within the definition of the term, the lie does not fulfill the definition of 'perjury' until it is used in a legal proceeding.

So, you do not have to be charged with or convicted of perjury for it to be perjury, the lie simply must be in the form of a lawful affidavit or sworn testimony in a legal proceeding.

If what you said was true, then a murderer is not a murderer unless they are charged and convicted in court. Whether or not they are charged or convicted doesn't change the nature of their act.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Nope. It only must be subjected to cross if it is introduced as evidence in a legal proceeding."

There's no point of making an affidavit unless you are going to employ it legally.

It depends... in many cases, you would be right, but there are other uses.

"None of the thousands of affidavits attesting to malfeasance, suspicious behavior, and outright criminal acts were subjected to cross, they were dismissed without consideration in violation of the rules of legal procedure."

Sure, sounds like sour grapes again because 'yard signs'.

Yes, that is what it sounds like to those suffering from TDS.

"1. Your claim is a bald faced lie. It is now in dispute."

Nice, let me know when it's perjury.

Already corrected myself, you were right on one point - it only becomes perjury when introduced into a legal proceeding (but does not have to be prosecuted as such).

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Again, this is simply false based on the definition of perjury.

To be found guilty of committing perjury you need to be convicted of perjury. That's how the law works.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
It depends... in many cases, you would be right, but there are other uses.

Affidavits are legal documents used to potentially support court filings based on their ability to withstand cross.

Except in the 'massive election fraud' scenario they all got tossed since there wasn't any. Boo-hoo for you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Again, this is simply false based on the definition of perjury."

To be found guilty of committing perjury you need to be convicted of perjury. That's how the law works.

Yes, the problem is apparently the way your brain works.

We weren't talking about being convicted of perjury. We were talking about the act of perjury.

A murderer is a murderer, a drug dealer is a drug dealer, whether or not they are ever tried for or convicted of it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
It depends... in many cases, you would be right, but there are other uses."

Affidavits are legal documents used to potentially support court filings based on their ability to withstand cross.

Potentially. Yes.

I used an affidavit to prevent the SBA from auditing our company for potential software licensing violations when they so kindly offered to come in and do a full fishing expedition (they called it an audit) of our network.

Never heard from them again.

Except in the 'massive election fraud' scenario they all got tossed since there wasn't any. Boo-hoo for you.

Yes, that is what TDS sufferers want to believe. They got tossed en masse without even being given due consideration as is required by state and federal rules of legal procedure. The judge does not have the discretion to just declare them invalid or false. If there is even a tiny possibility the claims in an affidavit could be true, the judge is required to assume they are true for purposes of the first stages of the proceeding, so that their merits can be litigated in our adversarial legal system. You know... claim, discovery, examination, cross-examination.

It is called Justice. You are talking about Just-Us.

Im curious how many Republicans here still think GW Bush is alright.

Its his boy Roberts that has ensured ACA stayed in place. And it seems he's running interference for any of these cases.

As an American, I know the only possible way to unite anything is to fully vet this incident. There will be bloodshed over the 2020 election. It has not happened yet...but it will happen. I see the lunacy in the eyes of the zealots on both sides of the political spectrum.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Roberts is compromised.
He is being blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.
And his relationship to J. EPSTEIN

originally posted by: tanstaafl
We weren't talking about being convicted of perjury. We were talking about the act of perjury.

Who determines and where is the determination rendered if someone committed perjury?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Potentially. Yes.

I used an affidavit to prevent the SBA from auditing our company for potential software licensing violations when they so kindly offered to come in and do a full fishing expedition (they called it an audit) of our network.

Never heard from them again.

That's nice. Guess they thought it was legit. If they didn't where would you have ended up?

It is called Justice. You are talking about Just-Us.

LOL, where we go something, something.