A commissioner of oaths.

Lying on an affidavit might not be perjury unless it's filed or something. I have no idea. I would imagine that once any legal process is predicated upon it, you have problems for sure, tho.

This is why things like this exist under affidavits.

@james j I don't think the envelopes are thrown away, initially. They lose their utility, because they are separated from the ballots in order to ensure the voters anonymity. The same is true for votes given in person. There is not supposed to be a way to see what a person voted for. When evaluating voting systems in TX, one of their requirements was the ability to assign non-sequential ballot numbers, so poll workers couldn't derive who a person voted for by keeping track of how many people voted at the machine and in what order.

I see @TaLoN132

@Maw this is the one rare occasion of when a trump lawyer appealed to these affidavits in court. https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-campaign-lawyer-admits-to-judge-our-search-for-evidence-of-fraud-produced-obvious-lies-and-spam/amp/

Those wouldn't be valid unless signed by a notary.

That's the point of valid affidavits.

Keyword valid.

@Maw No I was just positing that if someone just stuck it in a drawer and a court never saw it, you might not be able charge someone with perjury as a simple notarized lie.

I have no idea. It was a thought experiment.

Affidavits that are not witnessed by notaries are invalid, pretty sure.

You dont get in trouble if they cant be disproven, which I guess not a very high bar for it being true

That much is true.

If you are to file an affidavit with the court though, I'm pretty sure it has to be valid.

AKA: Signed by a notary.

All a notary does is verify that the person who signs it is who they say they are... They do not get the person to swear an oath.

And i dont think this russel guy is swearing election fraud actually happened in 2020 just that it’s possible. Which I guess anything is possible. @Maw

"The most common notarial acts in the United States are the taking of acknowledgements and oaths."

"All notaries have statutory authority to administer oaths and affirmations."

If you say something that cant be disproven or is just a opinion that doesn’t carry much weight. Thats why many of these affidavits weren’t even used in court @Maw

For instance, cops lie on affidavits all the time but it has to be shown to have an affect in order to be a crime. Maybe the Kraken dream team knows to not present them at a certain point and are only gathering them as a propaganda tool, knowing they will never be seen in court.

Js

@Zuluzeit exactly its just theater

I believe that's specifically called a 'material lie', Zulu.

In legalese. lol

Lol damn lawyerspeak

There is a lot of shifting goalposts it seems here though.

Again, I'm only stating that affidavits that are valid have been signed under oath in front of a notary.

When filed with the court.

Yes, the narrative has certainly evolved a lot for something which was claimed to be rock solid every step of the way.

I dont think anyone disagrees with that @Maw My take is that the court wont go after them but the lawyer can if he chooses to and feels like he was lied to. That maybe untrue ill have to find where I saw that

@james j, you just advanced to level 5!

That's not the same as filing an affidavit with the court though, @james j

Oh, if a person shows up in court and contradicts what was on their affidavit, it's not their lawyer of whom they should be most afraid.

Well my bigger point is that the lawyers themselves knew and felt the affidavits they were presenting to the court were full of lies and spam according to the article I linked. @Maw

And no one got in trouble

If the court enters discovery and has proof of a material lie on your affidavit filed with the court, believe me when I say your lawyer is the least of your concerns.

Lmao

@james j The mental gymnastics that Russ Ramsland does to infer shenanigans in 2020 is pretty significant. His whole thesis is based on the idea that voting was stopped at battleground states during the night of the election. This is a false assumption based on a FB post that went viral election night. Election workers have signed affidavits stating that they worked continuously through the night. The problem came in the slow down in reported vote counts. This was because those states were not allowed to start processing mail-in ballots until the polls closed. States like FL, TX, and CA allowed preprocessing of the mail-in ballots ahead of time - and some allowed counting to start early. The battleground states did not allow processing of mail-in ballots ahead of time. This includes the tedious signature verification and voter validation process. In any case, Ramsland believes that it is suspicious that counting stopped when it didn't. All other assertions are based off this assumptions.

I think all those cases were thrown out without getting to discovery