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

a reply to: UKTruth
Yes sir.
I thought everyone in these parts liked sunshine on the government?

Reckon now we'll see what the SCOTUS is made of.

Not *entirely* optimistic.

originally posted by: Hoser793
Reckon now we'll see what the SCOTUS is made of.

Not *entirely* optimistic.

Agreed. But it's good to know...

Actually, we need to know.

Staci Burk didn’t kill herself.

Might be the case is heard tomorrow, but SCOTUS should probably wait until the 4 new Justices are installed to make any kind of ruling….

You see, all this damn drama, something is up and we have to find it.

Something went down and NOT LEGAL and certain Dems are playing dumb.

Yes, this little political clubhouse is coming to a close, why Social Media censorship is crazy and Leftist pushback.

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.

Ballots should never be shredded for any reason for at least 2 years. They may be rejected but should be saved for evidence reasons as to why they were rejected.

The ONLY reason for shredding ballots is to hide something.

If these are ballots SCOTUS should make a ruling on at how long all ballots should be kept after a election.

If you are going to shred ballots at least use a Security Level P7 and then soak them in water.

At one military base i have seen their top secret shredder that turned paper into dust, and then they burned the dust.
Not that anyone could put dust back together.

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.

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.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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?

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.

Until it is subjected to cross in court it's meaningless, as you well know.

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.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

not in Arizona, they can be charged even with a unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement if they sign it.

Arizona Criminal Defense » Criminal Laws A-Z » ARS 13-2702 – Perjury

ARS 13-2702 is the Arizona statute that defines the crime of perjury. People commit this offense when they make either a false sworn statement or a false unsworn declaration regarding a material issue and do so while believing the statement/declaration is false. A violation of this law is a Class 4 felony punishable by almost four years in state prison.

The language of ARS 13-2702 states that: “A person commits perjury by making either:

1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false.
2. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.”

Examples
lying about the identification of a suspect in an Arizona grand jury proceeding.
someone signing an unsworn declaration attesting to witnessing a person sign a will when he/she really did not see anything.
providing a false description of an injury in a deposition.

ARS -13-2702 Perjury

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
a reply to: IndieA

Its funny to see responses from people mere minutes after a thread is posted. Especially when there is no way they actually took the time to digest the links provided. lol

Yet, they poo all over it.

That audio clip was just shy of 30 minutes lol

Look buddy, I don't need to read an article or listen to an audio clip to know my opinion is more correct than everyone else's.



/s

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

FFS, all they have to say is 'I believed it to be true'. Until they get to court for cross it's all opinion.

From your own source:

Defenses

People have the right to challenge a perjury charge with a legal defense. A few common defenses include defendants showing that:

they did not believe a statement was false,
they did not give a false statement under oath or penalty of perjury, and/or
the false statement was not in regard to a material issue.

originally posted by: Tekner
Look buddy, I don't need to read an article or listen to an audio clip to know my opinion is more correct than everyone else's.



/s

Nope, I don't. All that Q-Cumber, tick -tock, sworn affidavit stuff is so 2020. But if you want to believe it good for you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's actually hundreds of people and hundreds of affidavits but whatever it's all good brother man

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

well that's not what you claimed,

Dashen post's,

Most people consider taking the risk of perjury charges seriously

and your reply to that,

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

which is untrue,

i posted the statue that said otherwise, even a unsworn statement.

yes you can claim to believe something to be true. you can use that for defense, but that doesn't mean you'll be found not guilty. it's all a matter if the judge/jury believes you.

plus being that they say they witnessed something relating voting fraud, that would be a material issue.

originally posted by: dashen
It's actually hundreds of people and hundreds of affidavits but whatever it's all good brother man

That's nice, it could be millions, it's all **** until it gets in court for cross.

The law.com link had been 404'ed, and I can't seem to find any information about this Supreme Court hearing today.

It's as if this hearing is been classified or gone "dark".

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Dude, your source said exactly what I said, that they could claim they believe it. It's worthless until challenged and dismissed/upheld in court.

I will attest via affadavit that I saw a purple unicorn named Fred shoot rainbows and ballots for Trump out of his ass. I believe this to be true, prove me wrong outside of court.