posted ago by FreeSpeechMaster
+254 / -0
I think they're purposely going in these democratic controlled courts and torpedoing their own lawsuits, knowing that if they had confessions, video and everything else you need to win, these liberal judges would just throw it out. So, they go in, no evidence presented, a few general affidavits (harmless ones), on purpose, so the case can be over quickly and the judge can rule quickly, just so we can kick all these appeals up to the higher courts and then the supreme court, where they will then show ALL EVIDENCE that they have. They couldn't do it in the lower courts, because the sheer volume they have to present would take WEEKS and we are under a time crunch.
Oh, those sneaky lawyers.
I think they're purposely going in these democratic controlled courts and torpedoing their own lawsuits, knowing that if they had confessions, video and everything else you need to win, these liberal judges would just throw it out. So, they go in, no evidence presented, a few general affidavits (harmless ones), on purpose, so the case can be over quickly and the judge can rule quickly, just so we can kick all these appeals up to the higher courts and then the supreme court, where they will then show ALL EVIDENCE that they have. They couldn't do it in the lower courts, because the sheer volume they have to present would take WEEKS and we are under a time crunch.
Oh, those sneaky lawyers.
Attorney here:
Appellate courts do not hear any new evidence, your only chance to present evidence is at the trial court level. Appellate courts only decide if the lower courts made errors.
My understanding is the Judge did not permit the evidentiary hearing, then dismissed with prejudice. I not an attorney, but it would seem to me that it is the admittance of the evidence itself is what the appeal will be premised?
Not really. Dismissal at this stage is usually for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But dismissing with prejudice usually implies that there was something REALLY wrong with the complaint, like the judge is saying there is absolutely no way that the President could win, and basically taking that issue off of the table, which is technically not their call.
But I would have to see the specific complaint and the judge's dismissal
This is a black pill post.
I would doubt the law would leave such a loophole that cases being thrown out at a lower level, no matter how much merit they have, cannot be decided in more detail at a higher level. If the case was thrown out before the majority of the evidence was even given a chance to be shown, you are telling me that that evidence gets hidden forever? I really doubt this.. I am not a lawyer.
All cases are filed without the majority of evidence shown. All that is needed is enough that if taken as true, suggests that some sort of relief would be warranted.
It is way to complex to address what happened with this specific instance based on OP's black pill post.
Could it be that there is a case or two that has no chance of survival because the claim is too obscure? Sure. But filing the complaint requires sworn due diligence, and no attorney, especially not with what we are looking at with this election, is going to risk their license for it.
Remember, the individual attorney is swearing based upon their specific license, not the President or anyone else's reputation or career.
Cane here to say this. If it is not in the trial court record, it is not in the appellate record or the SCOTUs record on cert.
I dont understand what the heck they are doing then. Why destroy your rep so obviously by claiming mountains of evidence but not use it and give weak arguments? They are setting everyone up they claim to call supporters!
We’re either at the climax of a complex LARP or we’re in the storm. Take your pick.
During impeachment, Trump had the best lawyers on earth helping him. I have a real hard time believing that Trump would lower that standard especially with the stakes so high. In my opinion, the gestations of Lin, Sidney and Rudy are a ruse to mask what is really going on behind the scenes.
What do we have right now? Three high profile, on top of their game attorneys making more and more “too good to be true” accusations without smoking gun proof. This is uncharacteristic behavior for any attorney and not likely the behavior of polished lawyers like the mentioned triumvirate. I believe they they were set out to be noisy and to chase leads. They are playing against their character which garners interest and presents the aura of weakness. A proven Trump negotiation tactic.
We will find out if Trump has the nut hand by whatever rolls out this week. He knows people will gather together even with lockdowns. If he wants to talk to people, this is the best week to do it.
There is no ruse. Also, you're acting like those three are coordinating every single case filing throughout the country.
Chill.
The point of my comment, was that if their goal is to take it to the supreme court; according to the lawyer above, they can only use the same evidence presented to the lower ones. So by not bringing much of the evidence with them, they are tying their hands at the supreme court level if this is true. So why do that but claim you have evidence which you cannot use at the supreme court? This is a tactic I clearly don't understand.
No, you're just swirling around a black pill. Spit that shit out and focus on one specific case at a time. OP made a generalized statement based on his feelings, not based on any specific situation. Until that happens, get out of the way.
Never underestimate a lawyers desire to grandstand in front of tv cameras. No press is bad press for these types. If they actually have everything they say they do and turn this election around I'll chop off my left nut on tv. I've lost all patience with the tick tock blue balling BS.
Adios fair weather friend!
Exactly what I'm talking about. I said nothing negative about Trump. Just a very real possible outlook on the situation and you automatically want me gone. Keep that up and soon the movement is gone. Having blinders on especially after all the other tick tocks is unreasonable and takes way from looking forward for the next move if it comes to that.
You said yourself you were leaving, because you have no patience. What moves are you making otherwise to further the cause? Or would you instead like a tissue? It has multiple uses, just for you.
First off never said I was leaving. Second there are multiple plans going forward in case this doesn't go like we want it. I don't think sitting around telling each other next week will be the week up until inauguration is really furthing the cause.
Is it possible for an appellate court to force a lower court to allow someone to present evidence, which would basically be a retrial?
In other words, could they rule that we got railroaded?
Sure, for example, if the appellant (appealing party) says the trial court rejected evidence that supports their case, improperly, the appellate court can allow it to be submitted not for any purpose other than to address whether or not the lower court should have at least considered it. They can remand the case with specific instruction to rule on the new evidence. They can say, nah, this doesn't change anything. They can order the lower court to accept the evidence, in rare circumstances.
Thing is, if a case is dismissed early on, there likely will not have been evidence submitted, other than sworn affidavits, so dismissal is more of a legal issue, i.e., did the plaintiff state a legal claim that needs a decision by a court.
According to OP, who is totally getting it wrong, by the way, dismissals are being issued left and right, saying that the plaintiffs haven't made proper legal claims that the court can and needs to address, because the attorneys are purposefully submitting weak cases.
Bunch of boosheeyit.
The real problem here is that we know how a judge will rule based on their political leanings. This can make it seem like they're acting in vain, because we know our enemy.
Well, and that gets figured out on appeal when the judge did not have any sufficient basis for their ruling.
Then how do murderers get released with new evidence proving them innocent?
Like if they were in the midst of an election fraud investigation and there was new evidence that came to light during the process that wasn’t previously available before the initial filings?
That would be pretty difficult to prove though, when exactly the attorneys became aware of the evidence.
It has to be evidence that could not have been found with proper diligence originally. If you’re given a list of witnesses and don’t interview them during the case, you’re screwed. If the trial ends and you find out the prosecutor hid the witnesses from you, then you have a chance. The law is designed to screw over lazy parties. You don’t get “do overs.”
Like if they didn’t have access to the hardware or software?
In theory, yeah. But did Trump or his team ask for access to the machines? Did they do anything to try and protect the machines or ensure they could inspect them? I don’t know the answer to that question. I do know that if they get access to the machines NOW and find proof of fraud, the other side will claim there is no proof that the machines were rigged during the election.
My hope is that Trump has recorded phone calls and other evidence that intelligence agencies gathered for him, and he’s using all of the stuff going on now to try and win public opinion without having to reveal who was spied on and how.
Let’s be honest. The media could hear a recorded call with Biden agreeing to turn over nuclear secrets to China in exchange for a bribe, but the story they would run is “Trump spied on Biden - this is a dictatorship.”
Time will tell.
Not a lawyer, but seems to me you win if you can???
The old expression goes:
-If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts
-If the law is on your side, bang on law
-If neither is on your side, bang on the table
We have seen some incredible info come out. As person who has been involved in statistical studies, I completely agree that much of this is beyond anomaly and into the realm of statistical impossibilities. But I have no idea how they get it to transfer to court victories.
You have a few issues here.
The anomalies point to the issue of whether or not the vote counts are accurate. When dealing with that in court, the plaintiffs will be saying that the results cannot be certified because they are impossible. That first requires a state to certify, which hasn't quite happened yet. Once that DOES happen, the certification creates the right to a legal challenge. We haven't really gotten there yet but that's going to be the next big fight.
The part that HAS gone to court is the access by poll watchers, issue. The filings in those cases have been injunctions, trying to get the courts to allow fair, "meaningful access" to poll watchers to view the counts.
The other, big big high brow legal issue is based on changes to the laws made not by state legislatures, but by state executive branch directors, governors, etc. Those cases are extremely important because the Constitution is specific about the Legislature, not the state executive, deciding what rules apply, etc., in an election.
Just remember, there are a few different issues at stake.
Agree w/ you. But my last sentence was about not knowing how it gets transferred to court victories. Also, the safe harbor date is DEC 8.
In Bush v. Gore, safe harbor date was a determining factor.
That's the deadline for the states to choose electors they know Congress will approve of.
If they cannot choose, or choose electors that congressional caucuses will not accept, because of pending litigation or because the courts haven't made any specific findings (e.g., the anomalies aren't resoved satisfactorily), the decision gets bumped up to congressional committees to decide who the electors are which does not benefit Biden, the way they are carved out.
The best move will be for states to convince congress that their vote counts can be certified, and it's not looking good if they keep messing around with the numbers and don't come clean. The courts may just say, to hell with it, there isn't enough time but that's if the anomalies issue even comes into play.
Regardless of what happens with the election, if there are civil complaints about voter disenfranchisement, those don't suddenly stop just because the election is decided. That's why I split apart the issues, there's a lot going on here.
That's why people need to chill and read up on the process.
Federalist 68.
Opinion Question
Let's say the evidence is conclusive and supportive of rampant fraud. Under that circumstance do you think these state legislators would have the courage to NOT certify?
I have no idea. I have absolutely no idea.
This is a real test of our Constitution but based on what happened in Michigan, I can say that some will have the courage while others won't.
Just know that no matter what, there is enough here that a vast majority of Americans see who is in the wrong and who is in the right.
That is what we need to know at this point. The truth always has a nasty way of bubbling up.
Not throwing it. Their cases come before corrupt judges.
You can't present new evidence in appellate courts so this theory makes no sense.
Then how do murderers get released with new evidence proving them innocent?
What if new evidence comes to light?
The appellate judge can allow it. In this case the case was thrown out before the evidentiary hearing.
I completely agree.
These lower cases don't matter. The faster they can move up, the better.
They're not going to move up if, as OP says, they are throwing cases in just to get their foot in the door. That's dumb as hell. An appellate court is not going to validate or "cure" an invalid, defective civil complaint.
Someone responded this to me for a similar post:
Rudy and Sidney are being paid a lot to do the job and their obligation is to advance the President's position. And regardless of whether they win or lose the case, they'll be beloved by the right and they'll be able to drum up business going forward.
Gafasipmurt is correct. In law, you don't try to ambush the opposing party with evidence in front of an appellate court. That's a good way to have your evidence excluded. Appellate courts as a rule don't permit new evidence without permission of the court. To get that permission you'll need a good reason why you couldn't introduce the evidence sooner.
In general (not just in appeals courts), ambushing the opposing party is a good way to get on a judge's bad side. Court isn't the place for playing games; that's what cable network legal dramas are for.
When I reviewed the legal material in some of the President's cases, I thought it was trash, and I knew that those cases weren't going anywhere. They didn't have good evidence and their legal arguments seemed weak. I held my tongue because I didn't want to be a doomer, I didn't have the time to go through everything and explain it in a way that interested readers might understand, and because this site is an echo chamber, a self-described non-stop rally.
We were promised that this week, we would get evidence that would prove a bombshell case. That didn't happen. We got a lot of allegations, but no hard evidence to support them.
It should be becoming clearer now to people that none of these cases are going to alter the election results.
well i assume there is the possibility that the current cases are just to stall time while the prepare a bigger one involving Dominion but i dont blame you for being critical we all have seen corrupt people getting away with obvious crimes
All these mail in voting “laws” are illegal. That’s the important case for PA I believe. They can’t just make up new rules before the election then exploit them to win. And it’s not surprising that liberal judges would dismiss
This pede gets it. And remember, that's only ONE of the case types that's pending. There are other issues being litigated, like access to the counts by poll watchers.
So when the evidence is still being gathered, and new evidence comes to light, that would be a reason to allow the evidence in appellate court correct? Otherwise how does the innocence project function?
To answer your question, no. Because then you would have people just filing to file, then relying on appellate courts, instead of waiting until they had a "ripe" claim to file. That is frowned upon.
When filing, you state a claim to the court in such a manner that, if taken as true, there would be some remedy that the court could provide. That's it. There is no "proof" required because the court decides what is and is not proof later in the case, but you do have to swear an oath that the claim is made in good faith. After that, the evidentiary process begins.
The court can dismiss for failing to state a claim that the court could remedy. That would likely be what OP was referring to, but OP didn't cite any specific cases so who knows?!
I did not make the original post. I simply reposted what someone responded to me on another related post about this. I posted this as food for thought from what someone else posted on this site so we're not all in an echo chamber. It's important that even if people don't agree with a point knowing what points others are trying to argue to better your arguments for or against the ideas
I’m fine with that, and what about the points I made. That’s relevant to the discussion, no? I don’t want an echo chamber either, which is why I wanted to explore this and provide counterpoints
Very much so, wasn't trying to attack your questions. For whatever reason this post has been somewhat controversial and others that have responded to me seem to think this is my original idea or post though I was pretty upfront with it being a copy pasta from another.
Yeah emotions run high on the webs, that’s for sure. And I understand your points, but disagree at the notion that these proceedings are just theater. It’s certainly possible, and wouldn’t be a total surprise, but there are many serious allegations here that require and expanded view, considering the circumstances, not a contracted one. And the PA court which only focused on the minutia of details, the SCOTUS has a greater chance and really a responsibility to look at the entire case and the preponderance of evidence, which is where I think the legal team’s strategy is oriented towards. As well as looking to overturn the certs, not just the votes will be a strategy that will likely push us into a contested election, or a reduced majority threshold which should also favor trump if MI, GA, or PA’s results are tossed for lack of accuracy and transparency.
Martial Law it is then, still better than selling out America with crooked Joey boy.
I would guess are right but hoping u are wrong.
However anytime I pose a question about strategy or questioning when the are going to get a win in court I am promptly informed that Rudy and Sidney know more than me. I agree they do. However I point out that in bush v gore they were actually arguing a case in court nearly daily. Also the USSC showed great respect for the safe harbor date in ending recount.
It wasn't my opinion. It was a repost from someone else. I stated in the first sentence
This is wrong. No uptrump.
Agree with waiting till SCOTUS to present evidence.
If they show it now, tracks will be covered.
Makes 100% sense to me.
Problem with this analysis. When you appeal you have to go with the record submitted in the lower court. You are not allowed to add to the original record.
Not quite. There are circumstances that allow for the submission of additional evidence, but only for limited purpose. But that's not what black pill O'Pete was trying to say.
I think they are trying for discovery, grabbing all evidence THEY have, and allowing backdoor access to documents companies keep under lock and key. If they countersued, it would be hilarious to see the media spin-"Didn't happen! Doesn't exist! Shut up and eat fake news!"
Interesting.
That is spot on!
It's really not. It is a vague black pill post that doesn't properly explain what's going on, and you're better off going to Just the News or Mark Levin, or the court websites themselves, and reading for yourself about what's going on.
Don't fall for this garbage, if it were this simple, everyone would be an attorney.
This is that noise you keep hearing about. CNN opinion pieces.