Danny Riley "On The Record": What Does His Affidavit Accomplish?
Tuva Or Bust asked:
What does this document accomplish?
10:53 AM
Mad Dog Marine said...
Regarding affidavits in pretty much all jurisdictions:
Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979) (unrefuted arguments deemed admitted).
If this were me, I would reauthor an affidavit "specifically" dealing with the arrest incident. Obtain supporting affidavits of others who can testify that shots,indeed were fired at that same location and time of the alleged incident. Then I would (with video camera)bring them to the local sheriff's office and file a formal criminal complaint for "attempted murder,and/or assault with a deadly weapon". Not expecting a response by the local prosecutor, it would be time to write a letter to the press stipulating "attempted murder not a prosecutorial offense in Plainfiel,NH. Time to make these people responsible for their criminal malfeasance of office.
12:37 PM
Tuva or bust said...
The internet isn't a jurisdiction. The affidavit is worthless.
1:50 PM
David Christopher said...
Tuva - I'm just going to say what's on everyones mind here.
"You're a frigging moron."
Seriously, in my opinion, (and probably others) you're a prime example of what's wrong with this country.
2:13 PM
albanyNY said...
what does it accomplish? by asking that question shows you do not understand. A document accepted by a court is "sufficent on its face" and CANNOT be disallowed by a court to be put infront of a jury. This document is basically talking to a jury. Mad dog is right, more affidavits are better. i can not do it all myself and either can the Browns, we must unite under the banner of liberty to take our country back, this is our heritage and our legacy as Americans, we need other Americans to Step Up! and take on the responsibilty of taking our country back from the international bankers who we have fallen prey to.
Actions are louder than words
2:26 PM
Tuva or bust said...
"what does it accomplish? by asking that question shows you do not understand. A document accepted by a court is "sufficent on its face" and CANNOT be disallowed by a court to be put infront of a jury. This document is basically talking to a jury."
Posting a document on the internet is not submitting it to a court.
Bottom line, creating a document and posting it online is meaningless from a legal point of view.
And you wonder why people don't take the movement seriously.
Now go back to your conspiracies about how the evil government blew up a bridge this week for dark and nefarious reasons...
5:14 PM
The Freedom Fellowship said...
Tuva:
The affidavit was entered and filed as a legal document with the court. It now "qualifies" as evidence unless rebutted.
What does this signify?
A friend of the Brown's offered the following in response to the question "what does this signify?":
1) THEY fired first.
2) THEY fired on an UNARMED civilian, running AWAY from the officers on PRIVATE property after committing NO crime.
3) THEY tried to flip & intimidate, and threaten him. THIS IS WHY THEY ABANDONED THE SEIZURE OF THE BROWNs.
Danny Riley has now sworn to the FACTS under OATH.
It's time to force the newspapers and others to QUESTION the GOVERNMENT!
Did THEY use ASSUALT WEAPONS to fire on, and attempt to KILL an unarmed citizen, without threat or provocation?
=========
We know who's side you are on Tuva. You are against We The People. You are working/acting with/for the terrorists.
Read more here.
What does this document accomplish?
10:53 AM
Mad Dog Marine said...
Regarding affidavits in pretty much all jurisdictions:
Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979) (unrefuted arguments deemed admitted).
If this were me, I would reauthor an affidavit "specifically" dealing with the arrest incident. Obtain supporting affidavits of others who can testify that shots,indeed were fired at that same location and time of the alleged incident. Then I would (with video camera)bring them to the local sheriff's office and file a formal criminal complaint for "attempted murder,and/or assault with a deadly weapon". Not expecting a response by the local prosecutor, it would be time to write a letter to the press stipulating "attempted murder not a prosecutorial offense in Plainfiel,NH. Time to make these people responsible for their criminal malfeasance of office.
12:37 PM
Tuva or bust said...
The internet isn't a jurisdiction. The affidavit is worthless.
1:50 PM
David Christopher said...
Tuva - I'm just going to say what's on everyones mind here.
"You're a frigging moron."
Seriously, in my opinion, (and probably others) you're a prime example of what's wrong with this country.
2:13 PM
albanyNY said...
what does it accomplish? by asking that question shows you do not understand. A document accepted by a court is "sufficent on its face" and CANNOT be disallowed by a court to be put infront of a jury. This document is basically talking to a jury. Mad dog is right, more affidavits are better. i can not do it all myself and either can the Browns, we must unite under the banner of liberty to take our country back, this is our heritage and our legacy as Americans, we need other Americans to Step Up! and take on the responsibilty of taking our country back from the international bankers who we have fallen prey to.
Actions are louder than words
2:26 PM
Tuva or bust said...
"what does it accomplish? by asking that question shows you do not understand. A document accepted by a court is "sufficent on its face" and CANNOT be disallowed by a court to be put infront of a jury. This document is basically talking to a jury."
Posting a document on the internet is not submitting it to a court.
Bottom line, creating a document and posting it online is meaningless from a legal point of view.
And you wonder why people don't take the movement seriously.
Now go back to your conspiracies about how the evil government blew up a bridge this week for dark and nefarious reasons...
5:14 PM
The Freedom Fellowship said...
Tuva:
The affidavit was entered and filed as a legal document with the court. It now "qualifies" as evidence unless rebutted.
What does this signify?
A friend of the Brown's offered the following in response to the question "what does this signify?":
1) THEY fired first.
2) THEY fired on an UNARMED civilian, running AWAY from the officers on PRIVATE property after committing NO crime.
3) THEY tried to flip & intimidate, and threaten him. THIS IS WHY THEY ABANDONED THE SEIZURE OF THE BROWNs.
Danny Riley has now sworn to the FACTS under OATH.
It's time to force the newspapers and others to QUESTION the GOVERNMENT!
Did THEY use ASSUALT WEAPONS to fire on, and attempt to KILL an unarmed citizen, without threat or provocation?
=========
We know who's side you are on Tuva. You are against We The People. You are working/acting with/for the terrorists.
Read more here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 2:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home