Posted on 11/27/2020 11:34:10 AM PST by Golden Eagle
Seems there are plenty of better targets for your anger.
Hundreds of sworn affidavits by witnesses to serious wrongdoing is very powerful.
No one has refuted the facts in a single sworn affidavit.
This is extremely powerful evidence. The irrelevant nitpicking you do does not address any of the substantive evidence of fraud.
Good points, but doesn’t it depend on what the affidavit’s purpose is? Under Rule 54 practice, it is common to use affidavits.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/trial-evidence/practice/2019/third-party-affidavit-statements-admissible/
The affidavits attached to to complaint in this case are being used to defeat a summary dismissal by showing that there are facts to be developed at trial.
https://twitter.com/ImagesMD/status/1332371005096988672
Federal law requires retention of ballots and signatures (images) for 22 months. Some precincts in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas may not be able to comply and risk disqualification.
pic.twitter.com/tDKlAZifMv— Alfred (@ImagesMD) November 27, 2020
I think I mentioned that elsewhere in the thread, but yes, affidavits can be used in certain pretrial proceedings such as motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 (54 governs default judgments). There, the judge is not being asked to weigh the evidence, just determine whether there is any evidence sufficient to create a fact question to be resolved at trial, so affidavits are appropriate (in fact, live testimony is not allowed in summary judgment proceedings).
Affidavits need not be attached to the complaint for that purpose. She may have attached them to support a temporary restraining order (I have not yet read the whole complaint so I don’t know if she asked for that). TROs are ex parte and are supported by affidavit, but are only short term until there can be a hearing on a preliminary injunction, which last until trial. PIs require a full evidentiary hearing with live testimony, not affidavits.
There was a lot of reporting on these companies in the summer and into fall, easily discovered on the internet (I did that several weeks ago).
One company in Arizona handles the balloting production and mailing for multiple states and has openly stated that it sent more than 50 million ballots for this election (it might have been 80 million, don't recall exact number).
States do not individually have any capability to produce, label, and mail ballots to their citizens. It's all contracted.
DHS was purportedly involved in "ballot security" with these companies, but has declined to comment on what measures might have been taken. And some states require (or prohibit) watermarking by statute.
States do not manufacture, mail, or possess ballots. They provide mailing lists to a handful of contracted external companies (the largest is in Arizona) and these contracted companies produce and mail all ballots directly to registered voters.
Under those conditions - which had been reported openly in the news before September - how would any entity obtain blank ballots?
There's an answer to that:
Fake. Copies. China.
Thanks. Maybe Pieczenik was actually on to something regarding the “blockchain sting” which was of course the original source. Not holding my breath but fingers crossed.
https://www.brighteon.com/0d693a1f-b5d8-46f8-a843-73b2a7d5ec4d
It would not be surprising that some kind of watermarking might have been applied to the paper used in ballot production.
But keep in mind that (like all other election matters) states do specify the process right down to paper and watermarking (e.g., CA statutes address both). So for any federal entity to override those state prerogatives might be a little dodgey, especially if done "secretly."
Hence, even if watermarking WAS done - and I'm personally skeptical due to the logistics of such a thing - I wouldn't expect that to be made public.
Our US Government dollar bills are certainly watermarked, visibly, and I would guess that most every person in this country has at least 1 bill of some sort in their possession, so it could certainly be done.
Regarding the potential of all votes in every state being watermarked, I'd say that potential is zero. My guess is some watermarking is done in some states or precincts. My hope is that it was done where it was needed - in the contested states, and especially in their larger cities.
You seem to ignore the exclusions from hearsay which include the following, covering thing actually said and known personally by the person making the statement under oath as to what they experienced and witnessed:
Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Exclusions from HearsayThe following definitions apply under this article:
(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
You just cited (c) above, ignored the direct personal sworn statements of (a) and (b) but also ignored (d) 1 A-C, which cover the pertinent to your claims of sworn statements of hearsay in court testimony where the witness may be cross-examined. Why is that if not for obfuscation of the truth of these sworn statements having the status of evidence like any other piece of providential evidence or testimony capable of being entered before a judge in trial.
I know there hasn’t been a trial with open court testimony.
But maybe you should inform mr. Hoft and gateway pundit of that. Because they are either confused or being disingenuous.
I suspect the latter.
An expert on what?
It’s not hard to pick out clickbait.
And it’s laughable that when someone calls out a source for being misleading with facts, then they’re automatically liberal. Come on. Get a grip.
Can you direct me to that source? I 100%believe you, but I need a reputable source to show my people.
Why isn’t the press screaming about ‘sanctity of the vote’?
That’s easy. Having worked in graphic arts in the past, I know that any professional printing operation with multiple modern high-speed offset six color presses could turn them out. Very fast. . . if you need to have them pre-voted just fill in the correct Biden bubbles before creating the print plate (remember the perfectly filled in bubbles on the pristine non-creased, non-folded Biden only, no down-ballot vote, ballots reported seen?) and you’re good to go.
Pretty much right on the mark
On the mark!
Grateful we have dedicated patriots trying to report truth.
Just reading through this thread and it seems you should take your own advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.