Lays out all the evidence that more than enough votes are in question to Change the election which is all that is required for the court to rule for trump and throw out those bad votes.
Also lays the evidence as a foundation for the Georgia legislature to pick their own electors for Trump as is the rule under the US Constitution
Not a lawyer but I would say it depends on who is reading it. The claims are Kraken level, but the supporting “proof” is more squid level.
My personal fear is that the brief is a long shot. It’s not a good sign when the first sentence in the brief reminds the reader of the lower civil standard of burden of proof. It sets the stage to be underwhelmed. It also indicates that the brief was prepared, in part for the public, and not necessarily the court. The court does not need to be reminded how the burden of proof is applied.
The brief is missing supporting exhibits- so maybe those exhibits are really compelling.
That said, I think if she had the benefit of time this could be much deeper. It’s not her fault. Although if this is heard in court and the witnesses are compelling, who knows.
Personal verdict: stay tuned - enough there to remain optimistic but not enough to book a non refundable Amtrak ticket to DC for January
Reminding the courts/juror etc the burden of proof is boilerplate lawyering. You generally presume everyone is a fucking moron and handhold them through things.
You can access all exhibits and attachments mentioned in the documents. In my personal opinion those are pretty strong and sometimes they're proof without any reasonable doubt. Especially on the violation of constitutional and star law concerning voting rules and regulations that were clearly violated.
Its a great kraken.
Lays out all the evidence that more than enough votes are in question to Change the election which is all that is required for the court to rule for trump and throw out those bad votes.
Also lays the evidence as a foundation for the Georgia legislature to pick their own electors for Trump as is the rule under the US Constitution
Not a lawyer but I would say it depends on who is reading it. The claims are Kraken level, but the supporting “proof” is more squid level.
My personal fear is that the brief is a long shot. It’s not a good sign when the first sentence in the brief reminds the reader of the lower civil standard of burden of proof. It sets the stage to be underwhelmed. It also indicates that the brief was prepared, in part for the public, and not necessarily the court. The court does not need to be reminded how the burden of proof is applied.
The brief is missing supporting exhibits- so maybe those exhibits are really compelling.
That said, I think if she had the benefit of time this could be much deeper. It’s not her fault. Although if this is heard in court and the witnesses are compelling, who knows.
Personal verdict: stay tuned - enough there to remain optimistic but not enough to book a non refundable Amtrak ticket to DC for January
Reminding the courts/juror etc the burden of proof is boilerplate lawyering. You generally presume everyone is a fucking moron and handhold them through things.
exactly.....You are not a lawyer.......
I’ve read plenty of briefs and have submitted my own pro se.
You can access all exhibits and attachments mentioned in the documents. In my personal opinion those are pretty strong and sometimes they're proof without any reasonable doubt. Especially on the violation of constitutional and star law concerning voting rules and regulations that were clearly violated.
The Real Kraken and it is HUNGRY
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.15.pdf
What is this?
Affidavit from King vs Whitmer filed in MI yesterday
Was this in GA suit that was filed at midnight?
I don't see anywhere that it's actually been filed in Georgia.