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.
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.