- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Crazy Lin Wood has my popcorn machine warming up (1/30 telegram)
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:06 am to CaptSpaulding
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:06 am to CaptSpaulding
quote:
I can’t wait
That's what gets your juices flowing eh? I ain't judging.
0
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:10 am to Sentrius
quote:
Or is it just never ending benefit of the doubt and constant hedging?
I term it constant pressure, and I am curious as to why not one party mentioned in his statement has filed suit against Lin. Perhaps in due time he will be sued, until then there’s smoke.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:32 am to mmcgrath
quote:
If you want to get to discovery, you should put enough valid evidence in your complaint to get the case heard. Why would you hold anything back?
The belief that it's necessary that evidence somehow be attached to a complaint is a misguided belief. Below is the federal rule governing a proper complaint, in pertinent part, subsection (a). Take it for what it's worth. You may find that the requirements to pass muster at this stage are much less demanding than one might suspect. But in our society judges can do pretty much whatever they please....
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 8
(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:38 am to ksayetiger
Still paying attention to Lin Wood in 2021 is sadomasochism
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:39 am to davyjones
quote:
The belief that it's necessary that evidence somehow be attached to a complaint
Necessary? No. Evidence is introduced after all the time.
But a good idea if you want someone to give your case credence? Absolutely.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:49 am to jonnyanony
quote:
Necessary? No. Evidence is introduced after all the time.
But a good idea if you want someone to give your case credence? Absolutely.
Now into court comes Texas and 26 other states but naw, it’s probably just frivolous so jettison it.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:51 am to jonnyanony
I agree in part. There's also a strategic component. And please note that the opinions I put forth right now are general and not necessarily specific to these particular cases. Too many unknown yet pertinent details to make proper conclusions in these specific cases, IMO.
But generally speaking, there are strategic considerations inasmuch as not giving too much notice to the opponent about the depth of evidence possessed at that early stage. But again, to me, more importantly is the concept that the bulk of evidence in a given lawsuit does come to fruition during discovery. So it's just not reasonable to expect "smoking gun evidence" at the moment the complaint is filed. Once discovery is complete, then of course there's a tougher burden for the complainant to bear, and if the totality of evidence (including that which was secured during discovery) doesn't pass muster, then obviously the complainant will not prevail.
But generally speaking, there are strategic considerations inasmuch as not giving too much notice to the opponent about the depth of evidence possessed at that early stage. But again, to me, more importantly is the concept that the bulk of evidence in a given lawsuit does come to fruition during discovery. So it's just not reasonable to expect "smoking gun evidence" at the moment the complaint is filed. Once discovery is complete, then of course there's a tougher burden for the complainant to bear, and if the totality of evidence (including that which was secured during discovery) doesn't pass muster, then obviously the complainant will not prevail.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:57 am to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
I still for the life of me can’t understand why Gorsuch/Kav/ACB didn’t concur with Alito and Thomas... hear the case under Original Jurisdiction and let the evidence be heard.
This comment in a Line Wood has evidence thread seems way out of context. What do the three justices decisions on ruling no standing have to do with Lin Wood's evidence?
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:58 am to Sentrius
quote:
So when nothing happens with this "evidence" he has and nothing positive for Lin Wood comes of this mental examination, what will be next for y'all?
Allow free speech?
Posted on 1/30/21 at 10:59 am to Breaux
quote:
He had to move the goal posts. Nothing happened on January 6th, 20th and now their 10 days of darkness ends today. These people are retarded, but get your popcorn because nothing can stop what is coming.
He has nothing
Good. You shouldn't be worried then.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:04 am to Sentrius
quote:
How much longer are you going to keep saying this about Lin Wood? Weeks, Months, or years from now?
When is the deadline that he has to produce this evidence?
It could be forever or it could be a second for now. Stop trying to suppress free speech. If it takes forever he will be ignored. If he reveals hard hitting evidence soon then scrutinize the evidence on the merits.
More speech not less is how you either shut Lin up or bring real people to justice.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:54 am to mmcgrath
quote:
If you want to get to discovery, you should put enough valid evidence in your complaint to get the case heard. Why would you hold anything back?
I don’t disagree with this at all. The problem is, there were plenty of suits with merit, but they were thrown on for lack of standing or other procedural issues.
There has been enough evidence put in public that any true unbiased logical thinker should be clicking the “I want to know more” button. Is it “the kracken”, no, it is not.
But it is overwhelming compared to the bar room talk thrown into a ‘dossier’ by a paid anti-trumper which resulted in numerous illegal FISA orders, a special counsel investigation, and a basic hand-cuffing of a president administration.
But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good narrative that “there is no evidence “.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 12:16 pm to Floating Change Up
The whole "where's muh evidence" thing was yet another misinformation campaign perpetrated by mainstream media. They got everyone expecting something that wasn't a requirement of the law and procedural rules. The fact is that
-zero- evidence is submitted along with a federal civil complaint. It may well be referenced, but the law absolutely does not require provision of actual and specific evidence in direct connection with the complaint.
But MSM had and still has most people believing that this is the legal expectation at that particular stage. Well, that ain't the way it works and it's extremely unfair and inequitable to suggest otherwise. That artificially high level of non-legally required expectation is what provided the judges the confidence to go above and beyond universally accepted norms in how they scrutinized the election challenge cases. Overscrutinizing until they found a way to nix each and every case.
As an attorney it's dropped my level of confidence in the equity and fairness of my profession a substantial amount.
-zero- evidence is submitted along with a federal civil complaint. It may well be referenced, but the law absolutely does not require provision of actual and specific evidence in direct connection with the complaint.
But MSM had and still has most people believing that this is the legal expectation at that particular stage. Well, that ain't the way it works and it's extremely unfair and inequitable to suggest otherwise. That artificially high level of non-legally required expectation is what provided the judges the confidence to go above and beyond universally accepted norms in how they scrutinized the election challenge cases. Overscrutinizing until they found a way to nix each and every case.
As an attorney it's dropped my level of confidence in the equity and fairness of my profession a substantial amount.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 2:35 pm to davyjones
this is why the Rudy cases focused on procedures and not fraud. Fraud cases take a long time.
if the courts even heard them, which they havent
if the courts even heard them, which they havent
Posted on 1/30/21 at 3:37 pm to GumboPot
quote:Lin Wood's cases haven't included a claim of fraud. The first was about allowing voters to correct ballots in other counties, and the other two were procedural as well. Yet the judges looked at everything in the suits and found nothing.
This comment in a Line Wood has evidence thread seems way out of context. What do the three justices decisions on ruling no standing have to do with Lin Wood's evidence?
Posted on 1/30/21 at 4:45 pm to davyjones
quote:Why do they need discovery if they have everything already?
What you're insinuating is that the discovery process is complete at the time of filing the complaint thus each party's evidence is set in stone
It's been asserted many times that Wood and / or Powell already possess vast amounts of evidence sufficient to wreak havoc on their opponents.
Why do they need discovery?
Posted on 1/30/21 at 4:52 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
Let's consider the reasons:
A) Because they've been blackmailed
B) Because they've been paid
C) Because they're also guilty
D) Because if they hear it and don't rule logically (Trump won), they'll start a bloody war.
Choose your poison.
Hint: They're all correct.
A) Because they've been blackmailed
B) Because they've been paid
C) Because they're also guilty
D) Because if they hear it and don't rule logically (Trump won), they'll start a bloody war.
Choose your poison.
Hint: They're all correct.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 4:53 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:
Why do they need discovery?
The short answer to that is regardless what evidence one may have at the time of filing a complaint, 100% of the time would the plaintiff STILL want very eagerly to participate in the discovery process. Even if a party did have "smoking gun evidence," what's better than having smoking gun evidence? More smoking gun evidence.
The longer, additional explanation would be that the failure of counsel to seek discovery is probably malpractice. Lastly, irregardless of what may have been bandied about by the various attorneys, that should have absolutely no bearing on the normal flow of the overall process. In other words, it would be completely inappropriate for a judge to opine that "hell, they act like they have plenty enough evidence....we're gonna skip that part."
Posted on 1/30/21 at 8:16 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
I still for the life of me can’t understand why Gorsuch/Kav/ACB didn’t concur with Alito and Thomas... hear the case under Original Jurisdiction and let the evidence be heard.
My guess is they were too scared to take the case.
We have people who vote to send troops to foreign countries, but are cowards when it comes to arresting and prosecuting people for election crimes.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:14 pm to Pelican fan99
quote:
It doesn’t even matter what he has there is no court that would even come close to touching something like that
That’s not the point. Before you can have revolution you must change public opinion.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News