Liberal Forum

maineman » 10 Sep 2023, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2023, 2:24 pm

Are you saying that the law does not allow judges to dismiss cases for lack of evidence?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trum ... -wipe-out/

Discovery is not a guaranteed right.  If cases are clearly without merit, judges can dismiss them after initial pleadings and before discovery.

Here's a great article you should read:

https://theconversation.com/why-trumps- ... lts-150505

In one of several PA caes, Trump's attorneys actually filed a document that said, “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.”

How can a judge determine that there is a lack of evidence without allowing discovery .....?
and by dismissing a case without allowing discovery is the Judge not making a ruling based not upon the facts but his/her belief system?
So, if the Judge believes that it is rediculous notion that a presidential election can be rigged would he rule based on that belief ? 




 

Majik » 10 Sep 2023, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2023, 3:26 pm

How can a judge determine that there is a lack of evidence without allowing discovery .....?
and by dismissing a case without allowing discovery is the Judge not making a ruling based not upon the facts but his/her belief system?
So, if the Judge believes that it is rediculous [sic] notion that a presidential election can be rigged would he rule based on that belief ?

The judge determines the case is without merit by reading the initial complaint wherein the complainant lays out the basis for his filing.  And as the link I showed you clearly said, Trump's legal team could stand up in front of a bunch of television cameras and talk to folks like YOU and tell YOU that there was a mountain of hard evidence proving massive voter fraud.  As officers of the court and members of the bar, they were precluded from making those same statements in pleadings to the court because there was no basis in fact for making them.  If ANY of the Kraken cases, in their initial complaint had stated that they had hard evidence that proved voter fraud and would present that to the judge in court, no judge would have summarily dismissed it.  Remember:  Rudy stood up in front of the cameras at Four Seasons Landscaping in Philadelphia and claimed he had several binders of hard evidence proving massive voter fraud.  In the filing before the court, Team Kraken said, “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.” 

So tell me... if YOU had been the judge in PA...and YOU had heard Rudy's grandstanding outside the rows of azalea bushes, and then, you had read THAT.... what would YOU do?  Ask Rudy to waste the court's time trying to prove something he didn't allege and had no evidence of or dismiss the case and move on to matters that had some meat on the **** bone?
 
 

maineman » 10 Sep 2023, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2023, 3:51 pm

The judge determines the case is without merit by reading the initial complaint wherein the complainant lays out the basis for his filing.  And as the link I showed you clearly said, Trump's legal team could stand up in front of a bunch of television cameras and talk to folks like YOU and tell YOU that there was a mountain of hard evidence proving massive voter fraud.  As officers of the court and members of the bar, they were precluded from making those same statements in pleadings to the court because there was no basis in fact for making them.  If ANY of the Kraken cases, in their initial complaint had stated that they had hard evidence that proved voter fraud and would present that to the judge in court, no judge would have summarily dismissed it.  Remember:  Rudy stood up in front of the cameras at Four Seasons Landscaping in Philadelphia and claimed he had several binders of hard evidence proving massive voter fraud.  In the filing before the court, Team Kraken said, “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.” 

So tell me... if YOU had been the judge in PA...and YOU had heard Rudy's grandstanding outside the rows of azalea bushes, and then, you had read THAT.... what would YOU do?  Ask Rudy to waste the court's time trying to prove something he didn't allege and had no evidence of or dismiss the case and move on to matters that had some meat on the **** bone?

Soros funded judge like your lawyer daughter