Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:01.920] I'm Dave Champion. [00:01.920 --> 00:10.880] I have long said that I believe Americans need, I don't know, one, two, three semesters [00:10.880 --> 00:17.720] of something called introduction to law when they're in high school so that they understand [00:17.720 --> 00:25.840] how the law operates, what it means, the gamesmanship that's played within law because our freedoms [00:25.840 --> 00:29.800] are circumscribed by the law. [00:29.800 --> 00:37.600] I mean, it's very, very rare that our freedoms are oppressed or suppressed without there [00:37.600 --> 00:39.640] being law involved. [00:39.640 --> 00:44.560] So we say we're a free people, but then the vast majority of people have no clue what [00:44.560 --> 00:49.800] law is about, how it operates, what it does, and so forth, which makes it really challenging. [00:49.800 --> 00:54.760] In my opinion, it makes it really challenging to actually be a free people. [00:54.760 --> 01:04.200] There's a specific area where people are ignorant of law that has come to my attention in particular. [01:04.200 --> 01:09.880] I've been aware of the subject matter for decades, but as far as it being a problem, [01:09.880 --> 01:15.480] it has come to light with the allegations of election fraud and most specifically the [01:15.480 --> 01:23.080] people who are, I'll call them Trump loyalists, the things that they say about affidavits. [01:24.760 --> 01:35.280] I'm sure the vast majority of people in America believe if you say something in an affidavit [01:35.280 --> 01:39.560] and you sign it under penalty or perjury, voila, there you have it, done deal. [01:39.560 --> 01:41.320] It's true because you said it. [01:41.320 --> 01:47.120] Okay, so that's not remotely how affidavits work, although I think the average person [01:47.120 --> 01:48.360] believes that. [01:48.360 --> 01:55.320] The name affidavit is not the complete name of the document. [01:55.320 --> 01:59.000] In law, it's known as an affidavit of fact. [01:59.000 --> 02:01.400] What was that last word? [02:01.400 --> 02:03.560] Fact, that's right. [02:03.560 --> 02:07.680] It's not an affidavit of supposition, not an affidavit of innuendo, not an affidavit [02:07.680 --> 02:14.080] of guesswork, not an affidavit of suspicion, not an affidavit of hearsay, none of those things. [02:14.080 --> 02:22.520] So the reason I say that is just because somebody writes something down in an affidavit [02:22.520 --> 02:27.600] does not mean it's actually a part of the affidavit. [02:27.600 --> 02:30.800] Let me give you kind of a silly example. [02:30.800 --> 02:37.400] Let's say we agreed that we're going to together, we're going to build a boat, okay, and I'm [02:37.400 --> 02:40.640] going to manage this boat building process. [02:40.640 --> 02:48.640] So you show up with what you believe is the correct material with which to build a boat, [02:48.640 --> 02:52.160] and here's what you show up with. [02:52.160 --> 02:58.720] So we all know that's not something with which you use to build a boat, right? [02:58.720 --> 03:06.080] So what I mentioned, supposition, innuendo, guesswork, suspicion, hearsay, those things [03:06.080 --> 03:08.720] are not part of an affidavit of fact. [03:08.720 --> 03:15.120] So you can write stuff out that's innuendo, you can write stuff out that's suspicion, [03:15.120 --> 03:21.600] which you imagine is so if the way you connect the dots, this has got to be the conclusion. [03:21.600 --> 03:29.360] A lawyer or a judge who's reading the affidavit, okay, we'll go like, okay, 0.1, 0.2, no, 0.3, [03:29.360 --> 03:36.360] no, 0.4, no, 0.5, okay, 0.6, nope, okay. [03:36.360 --> 03:41.960] We don't build a boat with bowling balls, and we don't create an affidavit of fact with [03:41.960 --> 03:44.960] hearsay, suspicion, guesswork, innuendo, and supposition. [03:44.960 --> 03:47.960] So as much as people imagine they can say anything they want in an affidavit and sign [03:47.960 --> 03:53.000] it and that's part of the affidavit, that is not a factual understanding of affidavit. [03:53.000 --> 04:01.160] The one and only fucking thing that is permissible in an affidavit is fact. [04:01.160 --> 04:08.360] Now we go from fact to relevance, okay, you've all seen in courtroom dramas, you know, somebody [04:08.360 --> 04:11.920] says something, one of the attorneys, objection, your honor, relevance. [04:11.920 --> 04:18.360] So that principle is relevant in an affidavit in terms of the matter in which the affidavit [04:18.360 --> 04:19.640] is submitted. [04:19.640 --> 04:24.300] So for instance, let's say I got into a controversy with somebody I offered, I provided them with [04:24.300 --> 04:29.200] a product or service, and they did not pay me either in full or in part. [04:29.240 --> 04:33.760] So I bring a lawsuit against them, all right, we're going to keep this simple and streamlined [04:33.760 --> 04:37.360] so that we don't have to go with 28 U.S.C. 1332, the diversity clause, we're just going [04:37.360 --> 04:39.800] to say it happened within the state of Nevada. [04:39.800 --> 04:44.600] So as part of that process, the other side, whoever the principle is, the person we're [04:44.600 --> 04:49.040] holding accountable or responsible or has information relevant to the suit, submits [04:49.040 --> 04:50.040] an affidavit. [04:50.040 --> 04:56.240] All right, so we're looking down the thing and we get to like 0.6, and it says the plaintiff, [04:56.280 --> 05:02.280] that would be me, lives in a county with less than 40,000 people in it. [05:02.280 --> 05:07.680] Okay, so yeah, that's true, it's a fact. [05:07.680 --> 05:12.480] But how many people live in my county would have absolutely no bearing on the fact that [05:12.480 --> 05:17.440] I'm claiming that party owes me the amount of money they did not pay under the terms [05:17.440 --> 05:18.440] of our agreement. [05:18.440 --> 05:23.400] The fact that I live in a county that has less than 40,000 residents is not relevant. [05:23.560 --> 05:28.720] Okay, so you see, there's a couple of things here, first of all, an affidavit cannot contain [05:28.720 --> 05:29.720] hearsay. [05:29.720 --> 05:31.840] We're going back to the original thing now, right? [05:31.840 --> 05:36.520] Hearsay is when you say what somebody else said, okay? [05:36.520 --> 05:39.560] Judge or an attorney sees that, okay. [05:39.560 --> 05:45.000] I heard Mary Jo say, okay, that's out, okay. [05:45.000 --> 05:48.400] There's very narrow exceptions for hearsay. [05:48.400 --> 05:51.440] They don't believe, they don't belong in testimony from the witness stand and they don't believe [05:51.480 --> 05:54.080] an affidavit, they don't belong in affidavit of fact, okay. [05:54.080 --> 05:58.240] So they immediately get tossed out unless it meets one of the very narrow exceptions. [05:58.240 --> 06:06.140] A statement that tends to indicate suspicion as opposed to simply stating a fact, gone. [06:06.140 --> 06:12.480] Something that involves guesswork, I'm presuming that, okay, gone. [06:12.480 --> 06:18.560] Innuendo, well, it must mean this, gone, okay. [06:18.680 --> 06:21.680] It's not part of an affidavit of fact, supposition, okay. [06:21.680 --> 06:28.240] Well, I imagine that that means, gone, oh, and it can't include argument, okay. [06:28.240 --> 06:30.320] There's no legal arguments made in affidavit of fact. [06:30.320 --> 06:35.000] They're like bullet points, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, period. [06:35.000 --> 06:43.760] They are used by counsel to buttress or underlie counsel's argument. [06:43.960 --> 06:50.560] The argument is based on, in part or in whole, the facts in the affidavit. [06:50.560 --> 06:53.120] The affidavit cannot contain argument, okay. [06:53.120 --> 07:00.040] So it cannot contain argument, hearsay, suspicion, guesswork, innuendo, supposition, right. [07:00.040 --> 07:05.520] It's just a bullet list of facts that don't lead anyone to any conclusion. [07:05.520 --> 07:09.520] If there's a conclusion to be reached, that is part of the argument made by counsel, okay. [07:09.520 --> 07:12.600] So why do I bring this all up? [07:12.600 --> 07:18.360] Because when I've been talking to people who are called Trump loyalists, okay. [07:18.360 --> 07:24.640] And I say, look, in all of these lawsuits, 54 of them, of which, with the exception of [07:24.640 --> 07:30.640] a handful, the Trump or his surrogates, people, by surrogates I mean, people who brought suit [07:30.640 --> 07:34.840] in Trump's interest even though they weren't Trump or the Trump campaign, okay. [07:34.840 --> 07:37.360] But they brought the suits in his interest. [07:37.360 --> 07:41.620] So there's been 54 lawsuits brought by Trump or surrogates. [07:41.620 --> 07:45.500] With the exception of a handful of those, which were dismissed out of hand, such as [07:45.500 --> 07:48.580] the Texas lawsuit at the Supreme Court. [07:48.580 --> 07:52.300] With the exception of a handful of those, the majority, we'll call it, we'll just round [07:52.300 --> 07:53.780] it off and call it 45. [07:53.780 --> 08:01.540] The plaintiffs, that would be Trump or surrogate, have introduced no evidence. [08:01.540 --> 08:06.740] Now when I raised that issue, the Trump loyalists scream about these affidavits that are out [08:06.740 --> 08:09.580] there by all these numerous people, they put a link up to it. [08:09.580 --> 08:15.140] Look at this, you dirty rotten so-and-so, here's the evidence right here in this affidavit. [08:15.140 --> 08:22.980] Okay, so what I find when I look at the affidavits is argument, hearsay, suspicion, guesswork [08:22.980 --> 08:31.860] in your window, and supposition, exactly the things that are not supposed to be in an affidavit. [08:31.860 --> 08:37.180] So you can imagine, here's what happens, whoever hires the attorney says, I'm going to provide [08:37.180 --> 08:38.540] you with 30 affidavits. [08:38.540 --> 08:42.860] The attorney's like, right on, cool, good, I can take that to court, I can use those [08:42.860 --> 08:46.560] to structure an argument, let's do this thing. [08:46.560 --> 08:54.260] So then the attorney gets these 30 affidavits, and the attorney goes through it, and he or [08:54.260 --> 09:03.420] she is like, are you fucking kidding me? [09:03.500 --> 09:09.620] I can't use this shit, because it is argument, hearsay, supposition, guesswork, innuendo, [09:09.620 --> 09:12.860] supposition, with almost no fact. [09:12.860 --> 09:18.420] I know the attorneys have that reaction, because when these affidavits are provided to me, [09:18.420 --> 09:23.660] and I read down them, I don't mean to be disrespectful to the people who have provided them, but [09:23.660 --> 09:30.860] it's like, no, they're not viable affidavits, it's a fact. [09:30.860 --> 09:36.940] They contain all this stuff, which is not permissible in an affidavit of fact. [09:36.940 --> 09:46.620] I'm sharing this in reference to the election and the Trump claims of election fraud, because [09:46.620 --> 09:52.820] that's where it has become apparent to me Americans do not understand what affidavits [09:52.820 --> 09:57.180] of fact are supposed to be. [09:57.940 --> 10:03.660] I think a lot of people, virtually everybody that I've seen on social media, simply believes [10:03.660 --> 10:09.300] you can write shit out and say whatever the fuck you want, sign it under penalty of perjury, [10:09.300 --> 10:10.780] I got an affidavit. [10:10.780 --> 10:14.420] No, it doesn't work that way. [10:14.420 --> 10:17.620] So affidavits have rules, is the point of this. [10:17.620 --> 10:26.740] And so when we move on here after January 6, when it's all over and Congress has certified [10:26.860 --> 10:32.100] all of the electoral votes as submitted by the states, and then we get to January 20 [10:32.100 --> 10:37.700] and Biden is sworn in as president of the United States, once we get past that, I'm [10:37.700 --> 10:44.420] hoping that the message that people who view this video will take away from it is moving [10:44.420 --> 10:51.220] forward going through the rest of 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and for the rest of your lives, [10:51.220 --> 10:55.780] you will understand that affidavits have rules and in order for an affidavit to be valid, [10:55.780 --> 10:58.980] in order for it to be useful, in order for it to be evidentiary, in order for it to [10:58.980 --> 11:03.540] have value, those rules have to be followed. [11:03.540 --> 11:12.700] But I'm hoping once this moment of emotion and this crazy passion for electoral fraud, [11:12.700 --> 11:20.780] as soon as that ebbs, I'm hoping that as people move forward from this and calm down and start [11:20.780 --> 11:25.180] using their noodles, that in the future, no matter what the issue is, whether it's a civil [11:25.180 --> 11:29.380] suit you're involved in, whether you're considering a civil suit, whether there's some governmental [11:29.380 --> 11:36.380] thing in the future, at least you know how affidavits of fact really work.