Authority - AFFIDAVIT V.

MOTION
Bench: I have considered the Defense Motions & they are all
DNID.
!eal Man: I did not file any "otions# I filed affidavits.
Bench: $ell I a" treatin% your docu"ents as "otions&&
!eal Man: A'AIN# I did not file any "otions# I filed
affidavits( it is a cri"inal offense to file a false
affidavit# I notice I a" not under arrest for filin% a false
affidavit so it is clear that "y affidavits are true#
correct# and accurate( an affidavit is a state"ent of truth
so "y )N*ONT+TD AFFIDAVIT+ are the T!)T,( I-" sure this
court isn-t deli.erately DN/IN' T, T!)T, in order to
FA0+IF/ T, !*O!D&&& I-" certain it isn-t this court-s
intent to FA0+IF/ T, !*O!D AND *!AT DNIA0 OF D)
1!O*++...is it222
MO!!I+ V NATIONA0 *A+, !'I+T!#
&
'!O)1 V FIN0TT!
Defendant is li3ely to .e the only individual# no4 or in the
future# 4ho is 4illin% and a.le to 5lace a s4orn affidavit
affir"in% the herein disclosed facts under 5enalties of
5er6ury# into the record of this case and as such# in
a.sence of s4orn counter-affidavit si%ned under the
5enalties of 5er6ury re%ardin% these sa"e facts# la4s#
casela4s and evidence# Defendant should .e the only
5revailin% 5arty. Morris v National *ash !e%ister# 77 +.$.
8d 799# clearly states at 5oint :7 that ;uncontested
alle%ations in affidavit "ust .e acce5ted as true.<# and the
Federal case of 'rou5 v Finletter# =>? F. +u55. 98@ states#
;Alle%ations in affidavit in su55ort of "otion "ust .e
considered as true in a.sence of counter-affidavit.<