We would hope not! So this version is marketed to the Court Of Public Opinion.
This points toward deliberate sabotage on the part of the DNC's network of corruption: MSM is currently waddling little victory laps over the "typo-ridden" paperwork, without confirming that the hard-copy is indeed in order. (And of course: continuing the "no evidence" narrative despite the evidence contained in the legal document, choosing to focus on the typos instead of the content.)
No, the Left is taking victory laps because it doesn't look like Powell has a case. Believe me, I would like nothing better than for Powell to back up what she says in the complaint, but reading through it, it just sounds like a lot of unfounded allegations to me - and I'm not a lawyer. I hope she has the ammo she needs when she takes this to court, but if this is all she has, it is not going to go anywhere.
SIDNEY, page 1: As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence” .... Plaintiff only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.
This is not what the court sees. This is OCR to pdf
We would hope not! So this version is marketed to the Court Of Public Opinion.
This points toward deliberate sabotage on the part of the DNC's network of corruption: MSM is currently waddling little victory laps over the "typo-ridden" paperwork, without confirming that the hard-copy is indeed in order. (And of course: continuing the "no evidence" narrative despite the evidence contained in the legal document, choosing to focus on the typos instead of the content.)
No, the Left is taking victory laps because it doesn't look like Powell has a case. Believe me, I would like nothing better than for Powell to back up what she says in the complaint, but reading through it, it just sounds like a lot of unfounded allegations to me - and I'm not a lawyer. I hope she has the ammo she needs when she takes this to court, but if this is all she has, it is not going to go anywhere.
SIDNEY, page 1: As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence” .... Plaintiff only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.