Your question is justified and shines light on a completely corrupted judiciary. It wouldn't have mattered who brought the facts to the case. Labeling those that fight for freedom "grifters" is no different than being a sympathizer to the leftists, IMHO. The judges feared retaliation from the globalist cabal and their ever reaching evils that would have erased their entire families from this earth (JFK anyone)... We are dealing with a deep rooted evil that will do anything for power. We either exercise the true meaning of "E pluribus unum", or we no longer exist as a free nation.
No...I just hate what QTARD grifters Sydney and Lin have done.
I don't like Patrick Byrne either, but he was the only other one in the Oval Office for that meeting and offered a different explanation from a different perspective as to why the lawsuits went down as they did.
I'm just offering a different viewpoint that could explain things, that's all.
One state suing another in the context of election fraud makes no sense - Texas did not have any standing to sue Pennsylvania for how they slated their electors. It's a plenary power given to each state. They did not have standing to bring a suit period.
Only party that had standing to bring a suit against Pennsylvania was Donald J. Trump for President Inc. as he was the only one that had incurred damages.
There is legal precedent for this - Bush v. Gore. The two campaigns sued each other. The lawsuit in 2000 was not [Insert State Here] v. Florida, but rather Bush v. Gore as the individual campaigns had the standing to sue. The Texas v. PA lawsuit this time made zero sense.
And what I'm saying is that the lawsuits that were filed by the Trump campaign were severely lacking to the point of seeming like Trump's lawyers were trying to sabotage him.
The guy you are replying to is not even correct. I’ve read Patrick’s blog posts, and he says Sydney is a brilliant lawyer. His main complaint seems to be that Rudy was incompetent, not that he was a grifter, and that Trump relied on him rather than Sydney.
Who knows the truth, but this guy is not even representing what Patrick said correctly.
Because the courts are only going to consider lawsuits regarding election lawsuits from parties that have incurred direct damages from potential voter fraud, and not random individuals.
The only groups that can legally sue are Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and Donald J. Trump et. al., as long as the Trump campaign or Trump himself file the suit, and other parties can file an amicus curiae in support of the suit. That means only the official campaign lawyers (Rudy, Jenna, and Sydney) that were working with the campaign or that people like Lin filed and Trump himself signed on to could sue.
I remember there were two suits in PA not by Trump and that Trump had no part in that got shot down - one was from Sean Parnell and one was from Mike Kelly. Those lawsuits got shot down since those parties had not incurred direct damages and had no legal basis to sue. Trump himself was not affiliated with either of those two, and so they were rendered null.
With that being said: let's look at some of the official suits that Trump campaign did file: I read through the official Trump campaign lawsuits and they were downright embarrassing to anyone with even a little bit of rudimentary legal knowledge. The Trump lawyers filed lawsuits, but they intentionally filed such legally dubious and shitty lawsuits in an attempt at self-sabotaging their efforts. One of the lawsuits misspelled words like "District" and "Georgia" and were riddled with grammatical mistakes a middle schooler would laugh at. Most of them tried arguing some sort of foreign interference angle or voter fraud angle when they SHOULD have been arguing instead from a Constitutionality angle that the laws were changed w/o the state legislatures and thus the electors were unconstitutionally slated. Any lawyer worth their salt knows that the Constitutionality and state legislature angle has a much easier path to victory and a lower burden of proof than a voter fraud or foreign interference angle (even if both of those happened, it is much easier to prove Constitutionality).
The lawyers (Rudy & Sydney) knew this, but intentionally chose the path that had a MUCH higher burden of proof (god knows why, but given that they've been practicing law for decades, one would think it's an effort to purposely tank the suits). Aside from that, they made outlandish claims and claimed to have all the proof in the world, but presented absolutely none in the lawsuits they filed. Rudy even filed a voter fraud case and then in the oral arguments in a lower court said specifically that "this is not a voter fraud case". Huh??
Don't get me wrong, the courts are compromised to SOME degree. But not this hopelessly compromised. Read the lawsuits yourself and you'll see why Trump lost -- it wasn't because all the courts are traitors, it's because his own legal team consisted of grifters and con artists that backstabbed and undermined him every step of the way.
I'll leave you with an analogy: what happened with the lawsuits was if Gordon Ramsay was tasked with preparing a dinner for someone and "accidentally" used sugar instead of salt for all his recipes. With the level of experience his lawyers had: the level of incompetence they displayed wasn't on accident....it was deliberate.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Many states brought election related suits forward. All were denied before facts ever got to be presented. THAT is the only thing that matter, they were dismissed on procedural grounds rather than facts. Each and every judge abdicated their duty. It has NOTHING to do with WHO brought the lawsuits, period.
It absolutely has everything to do with who brought the lawsuits. It's a jurisdictional and standing concern. A suit cannot be heard if either the court [A] doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear it (remember: we don't have federal elections -- we have 50 state elections on the same date.) or [B.] if the party doesn't have any standing to sue.
One state suing another in the context of election fraud makes no sense - Texas did not have any standing to sue Pennsylvania for how they slated their electors. It's a plenary power given to each state. They did not have standing to bring a suit period.
Only party that had standing to bring a suit against Pennsylvania was Donald J. Trump for President Inc. as he was the only one that had incurred damages.
There is legal precedent for this - Bush v. Gore. The two campaigns sued each other. The lawsuit in 2000 was not [Insert State Here] v. Florida, but rather Bush v. Gore as the individual campaigns had the standing to sue. The Texas v. PA lawsuit this time made zero sense.
And what I'm saying is that the lawsuits that were filed by the Trump campaign were severely lacking to the point of seeming like Trump's lawyers were trying to sabotage him.
You are referring to a few of 80+ lawsuits, most of all which were brought by states against their own states, and all which were dismissed before facts could be heard. Did they have misspellings, too? Is that truly a basis for condemnation? Guess you never read real legal briefings, bc they are all laughable.
You argument makes zero sense, but instead tries to place blame on a couple of people who decided to try to go the federal route.
No state anywhere, with a couple minor exceptions, would touch any of this- so it cannot be placed on any single person or persons. Why are you attempting to proved that it is? What is your motive?
What about the other 80 lawsuits rejected, that were not brought by RG or SP? I’ve asked this before on other posts, but you never answer.
Your question is justified and shines light on a completely corrupted judiciary. It wouldn't have mattered who brought the facts to the case. Labeling those that fight for freedom "grifters" is no different than being a sympathizer to the leftists, IMHO. The judges feared retaliation from the globalist cabal and their ever reaching evils that would have erased their entire families from this earth (JFK anyone)... We are dealing with a deep rooted evil that will do anything for power. We either exercise the true meaning of "E pluribus unum", or we no longer exist as a free nation.
u/giantrabbit1 is a faggot who shills for that Patrick Byrne liar who admitted that he DOES NOT LIKE TRUMP AND DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP
I’ve noticed
No...I just hate what QTARD grifters Sydney and Lin have done.
I don't like Patrick Byrne either, but he was the only other one in the Oval Office for that meeting and offered a different explanation from a different perspective as to why the lawsuits went down as they did.
I'm just offering a different viewpoint that could explain things, that's all.
SCROTUS rejected the Texas lawsuit. That had nothing to do with Linn or Sydney did it?
One state suing another in the context of election fraud makes no sense - Texas did not have any standing to sue Pennsylvania for how they slated their electors. It's a plenary power given to each state. They did not have standing to bring a suit period.
Only party that had standing to bring a suit against Pennsylvania was Donald J. Trump for President Inc. as he was the only one that had incurred damages.
There is legal precedent for this - Bush v. Gore. The two campaigns sued each other. The lawsuit in 2000 was not [Insert State Here] v. Florida, but rather Bush v. Gore as the individual campaigns had the standing to sue. The Texas v. PA lawsuit this time made zero sense.
And what I'm saying is that the lawsuits that were filed by the Trump campaign were severely lacking to the point of seeming like Trump's lawyers were trying to sabotage him.
That you know of. Because Byrne told you.
I've yet to hear Trump confirm ANY of it.
Everything you accuse Powell and Wood of, Byrne is just as capable of being guilty of. He's a lawyer. He's a professional liar.
Now, I will admit I stopped paying attention to Wood early on. Something wasn't right with him.
The guy you are replying to is not even correct. I’ve read Patrick’s blog posts, and he says Sydney is a brilliant lawyer. His main complaint seems to be that Rudy was incompetent, not that he was a grifter, and that Trump relied on him rather than Sydney.
Who knows the truth, but this guy is not even representing what Patrick said correctly.
Because the courts are only going to consider lawsuits regarding election lawsuits from parties that have incurred direct damages from potential voter fraud, and not random individuals.
The only groups that can legally sue are Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and Donald J. Trump et. al., as long as the Trump campaign or Trump himself file the suit, and other parties can file an amicus curiae in support of the suit. That means only the official campaign lawyers (Rudy, Jenna, and Sydney) that were working with the campaign or that people like Lin filed and Trump himself signed on to could sue.
I remember there were two suits in PA not by Trump and that Trump had no part in that got shot down - one was from Sean Parnell and one was from Mike Kelly. Those lawsuits got shot down since those parties had not incurred direct damages and had no legal basis to sue. Trump himself was not affiliated with either of those two, and so they were rendered null.
With that being said: let's look at some of the official suits that Trump campaign did file: I read through the official Trump campaign lawsuits and they were downright embarrassing to anyone with even a little bit of rudimentary legal knowledge. The Trump lawyers filed lawsuits, but they intentionally filed such legally dubious and shitty lawsuits in an attempt at self-sabotaging their efforts. One of the lawsuits misspelled words like "District" and "Georgia" and were riddled with grammatical mistakes a middle schooler would laugh at. Most of them tried arguing some sort of foreign interference angle or voter fraud angle when they SHOULD have been arguing instead from a Constitutionality angle that the laws were changed w/o the state legislatures and thus the electors were unconstitutionally slated. Any lawyer worth their salt knows that the Constitutionality and state legislature angle has a much easier path to victory and a lower burden of proof than a voter fraud or foreign interference angle (even if both of those happened, it is much easier to prove Constitutionality).
The lawyers (Rudy & Sydney) knew this, but intentionally chose the path that had a MUCH higher burden of proof (god knows why, but given that they've been practicing law for decades, one would think it's an effort to purposely tank the suits). Aside from that, they made outlandish claims and claimed to have all the proof in the world, but presented absolutely none in the lawsuits they filed. Rudy even filed a voter fraud case and then in the oral arguments in a lower court said specifically that "this is not a voter fraud case". Huh??
Don't get me wrong, the courts are compromised to SOME degree. But not this hopelessly compromised. Read the lawsuits yourself and you'll see why Trump lost -- it wasn't because all the courts are traitors, it's because his own legal team consisted of grifters and con artists that backstabbed and undermined him every step of the way.
I'll leave you with an analogy: what happened with the lawsuits was if Gordon Ramsay was tasked with preparing a dinner for someone and "accidentally" used sugar instead of salt for all his recipes. With the level of experience his lawyers had: the level of incompetence they displayed wasn't on accident....it was deliberate.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Many states brought election related suits forward. All were denied before facts ever got to be presented. THAT is the only thing that matter, they were dismissed on procedural grounds rather than facts. Each and every judge abdicated their duty. It has NOTHING to do with WHO brought the lawsuits, period.
You stated the main reason.
It absolutely has everything to do with who brought the lawsuits. It's a jurisdictional and standing concern. A suit cannot be heard if either the court [A] doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear it (remember: we don't have federal elections -- we have 50 state elections on the same date.) or [B.] if the party doesn't have any standing to sue.
One state suing another in the context of election fraud makes no sense - Texas did not have any standing to sue Pennsylvania for how they slated their electors. It's a plenary power given to each state. They did not have standing to bring a suit period.
Only party that had standing to bring a suit against Pennsylvania was Donald J. Trump for President Inc. as he was the only one that had incurred damages.
There is legal precedent for this - Bush v. Gore. The two campaigns sued each other. The lawsuit in 2000 was not [Insert State Here] v. Florida, but rather Bush v. Gore as the individual campaigns had the standing to sue. The Texas v. PA lawsuit this time made zero sense.
And what I'm saying is that the lawsuits that were filed by the Trump campaign were severely lacking to the point of seeming like Trump's lawyers were trying to sabotage him.
Trump did personally sue Biden. SCOTUS still punted.
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially as it relates to Rudy, but SCOTUS is cucked and refused to uphold their oath. Period.
(Trump v. Biden Case No. 2020AP2038)
You are referring to a few of 80+ lawsuits, most of all which were brought by states against their own states, and all which were dismissed before facts could be heard. Did they have misspellings, too? Is that truly a basis for condemnation? Guess you never read real legal briefings, bc they are all laughable.
You argument makes zero sense, but instead tries to place blame on a couple of people who decided to try to go the federal route.
No state anywhere, with a couple minor exceptions, would touch any of this- so it cannot be placed on any single person or persons. Why are you attempting to proved that it is? What is your motive?
There's more wrong in this than right, but it's clear you're gonna dig a bunker on this hill, so I won't bother trying to refute any of it.