No.

I Judges and juries determine whether the evidence is conclusive or not and under circumstances where one party holds evidence, discovery is needed to show what the other side knows and has.

At the outset, the first step is that you need to state a claim with sufficient articulation of the evidence and the allegations, which if considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, would show that there is an issue the courts can remedy. This is the first step in civil cases.

Also, in cases like showing election fraud there is a burden shift that occurs, requiring the government to show there was no fraud.

People who understand that are few and far between on here ...

A long list of the cases was posted today. Look at the reasons for the dismissals.

If this stuff was as simple as your comment makes it appear, everyone would be lawyers.

No.

I Judges and juries determine whether the evidence is conclusive or not and under circumstances where one party holds evidence, discovery is needed to show what the other side knows and has.

At the outset, the first step is that you need to state a claim with sufficient articulation of the evidence and the allegations, which if considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, would show that there is an issue the courts can remedy. This is the first step in civil cases.

Also, in cases like showing election fraud there is a burden shift that occurs, requiring the government to show there was no fraud.

People who understand that are few and far between on here ...

No. Judges and juries determine whether the evidence is conclusive or not and under circumstances where one party holds evidence, discovery is needed to show what the other side knows and has.

You need evidence to show that, IF TRUE, fraud existed. This is the first step in civil cases.

The burden then shifts to the government to show there was no fraud.

People who understand that are few and far between on here ...