RIP Philo

STOP the PrEsses! Confirm Kavanaugh!!

> Which by the way is not notarized.

Lying McCain tumor guy points out the proof the]at he’s a rapist was not notorized.

The FBI can’t do anything.

It’s not notarized. The fBI can’t interview you,without a notarized deposition first.

End of story.

Thank you lying sack of shit white trash idiot tumor guy.
You saved the nation.  All heil Trump and Putin.

Notarize your shit, people.
Permalink libtard legal services 
October 7th, 2018 2:32pm
Notarization shows that the person whose signature is on the letter actually signed it. Forged affidavits are VERY COMMON and if you're caught you simply say you didn't sign it. With a notary you skip that.

Her legal firm has licensed notaries who could have and WOULD HAVE notarized it if this was his statement. Unless they are criminally incompetent at being a law firm. Some random person providing an affidavit often they don't realize they should notarize it. But a law firm providing an unnotarized affidavit when ALL law firms have notaries on staff is a massive red flag and a really obvious one.

So lets say he provides a notarized version. Fine. It's not the same as sworn testimony. Why? Because when you appear in court and testify they have a right to counterexamine you and also to show evidence impeaching you.

This was a big deal with Mark Judge who provided a non-notarized affidavit (no biggie, he had no lawyer) and didn't want to testify. So guess what? The FBI interviewed him under oath and he repeated his statement, verified it was his statement, provided additional information, and answered all their questions.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 3:32pm
Judge was a highly relevant witness since he was a supposed witness to the 1982 allegations.

These 4 other people are not relevant at all. One is her husband who already has shown he is trying to avoid nailing down dates, but has provided enough in his statement to realize that he Blasey said nothing about Kavanaugh to him before 2018. The coach she told about Kavanaugh at the earliest one day before she phones the Washington Post. That's not relevant at all. Might as well have the Washington Post tip line person testify that they have personal knowledge of the attack as well since they got an email on June 30. That would be laughable, as is people who first heard the day before. The other two affidavits are from people who testify she never told them anything about Kavanaugh.

Which of these four affidavits would you as an attorney try to bring before the court, and what argument would you use to support that attempt to the judge when he asks you for relevance?
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 3:33pm
Massive red flag! The biggest red flag ever!
Permalink Boo boo boo 
October 7th, 2018 3:51pm
Not the biggest ever but an actual lawyer providing sworn witness testimony that's not notarized and expecting it to be taken seriously is very very unusual.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 3:58pm
Pretty big red flag! Not the biggest! but so so so big! Big enough to put a rapist on the supreme court, in my opinion!
Permalink Hoo hoo hoo 
October 7th, 2018 4:25pm
Evidence is introduced in a case about a serious criminal case. It's an affidavit from a witness.

The affidavit is found to be false and the court's attempt to prosecute the person for perjury.

The person says, "I've never seen this affidavit before in my life."

So the prosecutor asks the lawyer, "Where did you get this affidavit?"

The lawyer says, "It arrived one day in the mail in an envelope with no return address."

Prosecutor asks, "What did you do to confirm that the person making the statement was actually that person?"

Lawyer says, "I dunno. Nothing I guess. I thought it was legit."

Prosecutor, DA, judges don't like this shit, but some unethical lawyers do pull this shit.

That is exactly why they asked witnesses in court, "Are you familiar with this affidavit in your name on this date?" Yes. "Did you write this letter yourself?" Yes. "Do you wish to correct or clarify anything in this statement?" No. "Do you wish to adopt this affidavit as your sworn testimony in the current proceedings?" Yes.

They actually did that during the Senate hearing. Twice.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 4:41pm
Get the rapist on the court! The godamn document was not notarized!
Permalink Foo foo foo 
October 7th, 2018 4:56pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: October, 2018 Other topics: October, 2018 Recent topics Recent topics