View in: Desktop
Copyright @2024 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.
- 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
Posted by
Message
PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?
Posted by Gings5 on 1/17/21 at 9:56 am1412
It’s confusing to a non lawyer how the courts wouldn’t even listen. Can someone explain better? Navarro report was pretty damning.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by theunknownknight on 1/17/21 at 9:57 am to Gings5
Because they can - judges gonna judge
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by arseinclarse on 1/17/21 at 9:58 am to Gings5
Defendants filed exceptions and the courts granted them. Defendants didn’t have to respond. Case dismissed.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by Bulldogblitz on 1/17/21 at 9:59 am to theunknownknight
quote:England.
Because they can - judges gonna judge
Hell, one court could have taken the case and that one judge could have just kept them busy the whole time and then ruled against it all anyway.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by Gings5 on 1/17/21 at 9:59 am to arseinclarse
Was evidence presented beforehand or only in court? Hard to side with defendants if one side doesn’t even get to present.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by JudgeHolden on 1/17/21 at 9:59 am to Gings5
Because the lawyers prosecuted them that badly.
/thread
Do you blame the refs for calling the touchdowns in a 77-0 blowout?
/thread
Do you blame the refs for calling the touchdowns in a 77-0 blowout?
quote:
Navarro report was pretty damning.
Because most of that stuff happens every election and everyone knows about it. However, nothing is ever done to prevent it and state/local officials won't enforce the laws on the books.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by HailToTheChiz on 1/17/21 at 10:03 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Because the lawyers prosecuted them that badly
How can you fully prosecute something that's never allowed before a court?
There is NOTHING damning in the Navarro report. It is simply allegations and a summary of allegations already made in court.
The allegations did not have enough merit for the court to consider them.
The allegations did not have enough merit for the court to consider them.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by SlowFlowPro on 1/17/21 at 10:05 am to Gings5
Challenging elections typically has a very limited scope and requires a specific type of evidence. The suits also move fast so normal discovery is not present. Then appeals courts are limited to that limited record of the trial court.
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor to Everyone
Advertisement
think about this Gings5---should I be able to bring action against you for some alleged wrong you committed against me without at least being able to describe the evidence I have?? Should a court give us a date for trial?
Think of how thin their evidence had to be that every single court they filed a lawsuit in refused a trial.
Had they filed a lawsuit in Atlanta that said "we have the names of 4200 dead people that voted and we want the election overturned" I suspect they would have gotten a trial. Instead they filed a lawsuit and said "we believe there were potentially 4200 dead people that voted and we really don't have anything to back that up". Why would a judge let that go forward???
Hell they could have probably gotten more court time had they produced 4 or 5 people that voted illegally and swore to it.
Think of how thin their evidence had to be that every single court they filed a lawsuit in refused a trial.
Had they filed a lawsuit in Atlanta that said "we have the names of 4200 dead people that voted and we want the election overturned" I suspect they would have gotten a trial. Instead they filed a lawsuit and said "we believe there were potentially 4200 dead people that voted and we really don't have anything to back that up". Why would a judge let that go forward???
Hell they could have probably gotten more court time had they produced 4 or 5 people that voted illegally and swore to it.
This post was edited on 1/17 at 10:16 am
quote:
PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?
Mostly because a court case isn’t a meeting point where people show up and make their arguments.
You have to at least have an outline of your basis, the relief you are seeking and the entirety of the evidentiary support filed.
One of the biggest problems with the cases was the fact that their desired relief was to throw out the state’s election based on things like having an affidavit that someone backed up a van of unknown boxes.
If they had done something like requesting a stay of certification pending investigation into irregularities noted A, B,C they prob would have had a lot more success.
And don’t forget, Rudy did have at least one day in court.
And in it, he made a compelling case which included stating it was the position of the plaintiff that there wasn’t systemic fraud.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by JudgeHolden on 1/17/21 at 10:15 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
How can you fully prosecute something that's never allowed before a court?
How do you think you get something in front of a court? Lawyers do it.
Go back to the football analogy. Your team takes the field. And they try an on side kick right off. Returned for a TD.
They kick again. And do it again. When they finally get the ball, they try a Hail Mary on first down. It’s picked off. It’s plain they have no game plan.
In the halftime interview, the coaches keep promising a secret playbook is just about to be revealed.
Third and fourth quarters go about the same.
The coaches appeal to the SEC claiming bad officiating caused the loss. They are mocked uniformly by anyone who watched the game.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by themunch on 1/17/21 at 10:20 am to JudgeHolden
And just as in the football game, referees make calls, some bad, some need over turning, with video evidence and oh Lort, the call stands and game goes on.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by LSUTIGER in TEXAS on 1/17/21 at 10:20 am to JudgeHolden
Your analogies have zero correlation to what’s going on. You’re just blowing hot air, as usual
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by PsychTiger on 1/17/21 at 10:22 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
The coaches appeal to the SEC claiming bad officiating caused the loss. They are mocked uniformly by anyone who watched the game.
You sound like a Bama fan.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by JudgeHolden on 1/17/21 at 10:24 am to PsychTiger
quote:
You sound like a Bama fan.
Back off. I’ll take a lot of shite from you. Not that.
re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?Posted by themunch on 1/17/21 at 10:25 am to JudgeHolden
Lawyer on Twitter: there was fraud! We have the evidence and just filed our suit
Gets to court
Judge: so this is the fraud suit I saw you post on Twitter?
Lawyer: no not at all we have an issue with poll watchers, we’re not alleging fraud
Judge: ok cool what was the issue with the poll watches
Lawyer: well the dems didn’t let our people do what we wanted
Judge: like what?
Lawyer: they weren’t close enough to determine is the ballot counter used
Pantene or not
Judge: GTFO
Gets to court
Judge: so this is the fraud suit I saw you post on Twitter?
Lawyer: no not at all we have an issue with poll watchers, we’re not alleging fraud
Judge: ok cool what was the issue with the poll watches
Lawyer: well the dems didn’t let our people do what we wanted
Judge: like what?
Lawyer: they weren’t close enough to determine is the ballot counter used
Pantene or not
Judge: GTFO
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News