I did not say testimony of the victim (or anyone else) is hearsay. Testimony occurs when the witness is in court testifying in person. The testimony of the witness in court as to those things he or she personally witnessed is certainly good evidence if it is relevant to the issue in the hearing. What I said is that affidavits are hearsay and thus generally not admissible evidence. Affidavits are not testimony. Because of that, you need the testimony in court of the person who made the statements. So I suggest you actually read more carefully what was said before calling someone a moron. I know far more about litigating in court than you do, that much is clear, so you might want to take a step back and consider that someone is trying to help you and try to learn. But if you are simply going to be rude and insulting, I won't bother trying to help you. I prefer to help those who actually appreciate the help.
I don't know that this "free advice community" you refer to is, as that term could mean all kinds of things. But certainly you'd lose if you sued any of the people who have so far responded in this thread. Getting answers you don't like is not something for which the law gives you a remedy. And clearly you don't have a clue as to what RICO is about. To the extent you are trying to intimidate me and others responding on this board with threats of a lawsuit, you can save your time because I'm not in the least intimidated or bothered by the threat since you could not possibly succeed.
There are literally thousands of sections in the U.S. Code. When you misstate the cite, you leave it to others to guess which one you meant. I did however guess it was 18 U.S.C. § 1001. And that section specfically states that it applies only to false statements made in matters in which the federal government is involved — i.e. statements to federal agencies, federal courts and Congress. You are litigating in state court so that section has no application to your petition. If you cannot even read a statute properly you will have a lot of trouble in that hearing. I again urge you to get a lawyer if you really want to succeed with this. If you do it pro se, you're going to have a much harder time of it. I've seen others that make the same kinds of claims you do, and they do not do well in court because they clearly do not understand the law and civil procedure. Whatever site or organization you've been using for this stuff is not doing you much good.
Simply put -- my own affidavits recounting thing I witnessed first hand can be submitted with my complaint to substantiate my allegations. They are not inadmissible. You're lying through your teeth and should be arrested for trying to sell a can of lunacy. What are 'statement of facts' inadmissible to? You selling dog shit buddy.
Don't harass me on these boards again.
Look at this:
In law, an affidavit is a written statement of facts by someone who has sworn to tell the truth, signed in the presence of a notary public or other legal authority, and can be used as evidence in the courts.
Three elements an affidavit must include to become official are:
The Written Oath where a person (the affiant) swears that the specific facts they wish to declare are true;
The Signature of the one making the written statement;
The Certification by a notary public or other qualified official stating that an oath affirming the truth of the statements in the affidavit was witnessed in person.
Keep lying -- lol, the Feds send a bunch of goonies to lie through their teeth to victims (and perps) on free advice boards, then they conspire with the courts staff, or other people handling their cases and push them over with additional fraud corroborating the other fraud they uttered from the distal source. Nice try. I can see right through it. And that's extremely severe tampering. You belong in prison for a long time. And remember the tampering aids and abets in the other primary offenses being committed. Such as conspiracy to sexually abuse and kidnap. Keep talking.
You have just give a common non legal definition of hearsay. But the definition of hearsay in the law is considerably different. Ohio has adopted the classic legal definition of hearsay in its rules of evidence, and it tracks the definition used by many others states and the federal courts as well:
"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(C). Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) is the same rule, but explained perhaps just a little more clearly:
“Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Notice that the hearsay rule focuses on the fact that the statement sought to be admitted was made outside of court and is being used to prove truth of what was asserted in that statement. For example, if Bill wants to introduce a letter (or affidavit) written by Amy that says "I saw Carl steal Bill's car" and Bill wants to use Amy's letter as proof that Carl stole Bill's car, that letter is hearsay because Amy's statement was in letter made outside of court and he wants to use Amy's statement as proof that Carl stole Bill's car. And because that letter is hearsay is not admissible as evidence unless some exception is found to allow it. See Ohio Rule of Evidence Rule 802. Instead, Bill needs to get Amy in court to testify in person that she saw Carl steal Bill's car. Note that the letter is not hearsay as you defined it because Amy's letter, like your affidavits, is stating what she herself saw. She is not stating what someone else told her. It is the fact that the statement was made out of court that makes it hearsay. Your affidavits would suffer the same problem. Sure, you saw what you attested to in the affidavits. But those statements were made outside of court and thus will end up as hearsay and not admissible. Instead, you have to testify in court as to what you saw if you want the court to consider that.
The affidavit is your statement. It is not testimony. Testimony is what you give on the stand in court.
You might attach the affidavits to the petition but they are not required and won't do any good as the judge is not going to read them. In a request for an ex parte protection order the court sets a hearing — which you were given — and at the hearing the court wants to see the admissible evidence that supports your petition. That is where you prove your allegations. You don't prove them with the petition. The court apparently held the hearing on the ex parte request, denied it, and now has set the full hearing on the request for the permanent protection order. So you've gotten past the pleading stage (the submission of the petition and response) and thus any affidavits you attached to the petition would be irrelevant at this point anyway. You now have your opportunity to get the order if you prove what you need to prove at that hearing. If you want to succeed, you really need to get a lawyer. Your misunderstanding of the definition of hearsay illustrates you have not read and do not understand the rules of evidence. If you don't have a good understanding of those rules, how do you hope to get your evidence admitted and considered by the court? You can't just go in there and do what you want. There are rules for what evidence is admissible and the steps you have to take to get it admitted. What you are trying to do is like trying to play football when you have no idea of the rules of the game. How can you win if you don't even know the rules?
The problem is that you didn't read that page very carefully. If you had, you would have realized that the discussion given there relates to law in India, not Ohio. The author quite clearly refers to Indian law and a provision of the Indian Evidence Act. It is therefore useless to you as it has nothing to do with law anywhere in the U.S., let alone Ohio, and it is Ohio law that matters to you in this proceeding. I have given you what Ohio law actually says about hearsay and that very much affects the admissibility of the affidavits as evidence in court.
So...if folks here disagree...we're lying.
I'm not going to waste my time on this one. Nope. Going to drink my coffee. I had t switch to decaf.
I miss regular coffee.
What would really be nice is a RICO Krispy Treat to dunk in my decaf coffee.
"Where do those stairs go?"
"They go up!"
Spoken like a true southerner.Bless your heart.
If they don't let me prove my claims when I CAN prove them then I've been deprived due process simple as that. And based on your statements -- my affidavits are admissible. I will go to court to reaffirm their veracity. You're lying through your teeth. Stop perpetrating the criminal offense your perpetrating.