It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"There is no evidence!" - yes, there is, you just don't understand how civil litigation works

page: 1
55
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+33 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I'm sick and tired of seeing all of the ridiculous comments about the lack of evidence and these cases being thrown out.

Most of these comments are from people who have no clue how the legal system works. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been studying law from a layman's perspective for a long time, so I could actually explain this to you myself, but, since you would just dismiss it because IANAL, I'll let a real lawyer explain it to you. He goes into detail as to why these affidavits are just the starting point, why you don't need to present underlying evidence, you only need to submit enough to 'state a claim upon which relief may be granted'.

Affidavits are evidence, and all this is required to get a civil case going.

Once a lawsuit is filed, it must survive the usual and expected Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To do this is not a difficult hurdle. Why? Because the Judge must rule on such a motion as if the claims in the affidavits are true. The judge cano not dismiss it because he finds the claims 'far-fetched' or 'without merit' or 'baseless'. He must make his ruling on whether the suit can go forward by asking the question: If the claims are true, would the plaintiff have a case?

So, let's see what the great one has to say on the subject...


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Lying on an affidavit is also considered perjury.
In Michigan it’s punishable with up to 15 years in prison.

After a affidavit is filed, the contents must be evaluated.
In the kavanaugh hearing, ms fords statements were things like, I believe it was him and I think we were at the same party but I don’t know where or when it was.

These current statements are much more detailed and clear in their assertions.


+8 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I'm sick and tired of seeing all of the ridiculous comments about the lack of evidence and these cases being thrown out.

Most of these comments are from people who have no clue how the legal system works. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been studying law from a layman's perspective for a long time, so I could actually explain this to you myself, but, since you would just dismiss it because IANAL, I'll let a real lawyer explain it to you. He goes into detail as to why these affidavits are just the starting point, why you don't need to present underlying evidence, you only need to submit enough to 'state a claim upon which relief may be granted'.

Affidavits are evidence, and all this is required to get a civil case going.

Once a lawsuit is filed, it must survive the usual and expected Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To do this is not a difficult hurdle. Why? Because the Judge must rule on such a motion as if the claims in the affidavits are true. The judge cano not dismiss it because he finds the claims 'far-fetched' or 'without merit' or 'baseless'. He must make his ruling on whether the suit can go forward by asking the question: If the claims are true, would the plaintiff have a case?

So, let's see what the great one has to say on the subject...


You should take it up with Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a longtime and well-known Republican in Pennsylvania, who dismissed Trump's suit on Saturday. He wrote:

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

Apparently he doesn't know as much about the law as you do.

www.cnn.com...


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   
An important legal Milestone is reached, after a state has certified. Take Michigan, who certified Joe Biden as the winner today...

The door is now open for the Department of Justice to investigate the many sworn affidavits of Michigan fraud and cheating, as attorney general Barr instructed.

One example...

mobile.twitter.com...


edit on 11/23/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Just let them go and do their childish grandstanding. The supreme court will rule on this and that's all that matters. Not dumbass posts/threads about this or that. They can say there was no fraud till they are blue in the face...doesn't matter.

Let's see what the supreme court says...until then some of you retards may want to hold off celebrating like you won something.



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

So these people were "ordered" to commit fraud and they said "ok", "sure" and continued to do so? Ummm what and why? Also why in only Wayne County which they would have won anyway?



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Links to OP transcript & a backup...


So those people who say, Biden won, let’s get over it, let’s move along…if you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in the constitution, if you believe in the nature of civil litigation, that there needs to be some discovery with Dominion voting system and other activities that took place. We literally have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits of fraud. If you believe in that system, then it shouldn’t be cut short. Otherwise the entire integrity of your franchise is called into question. And it will happen in ’22 and ’24…

www.jenkuznicki.com...

Backup on Internet Archive: archive.org...


edit on 11.23.2020 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: carewemust

So these people were "ordered" to commit fraud and they said "ok", "sure" and continued to do so? Ummm what and why? Also why in only Wayne County which they would have won anyway?


It wasn't only Wayne county, first off...

Secondly, I don't know if you are aware of how a state election works, but the majority of voters IN the state decide the outcome.

Not the majority of counties.

So it doesn't matter if "they would have won the county anyway."

What matters is the total amount of votes in the state.

Hope that helped!



edit on 23-11-2020 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: tanstaafl

Lying on an affidavit is also considered perjury.
In Michigan it’s punishable with up to 15 years in prison.

After a affidavit is filed, the contents must be evaluated.
In the kavanaugh hearing, ms fords statements were things like, I believe it was him and I think we were at the same party but I don’t know where or when it was.

These current statements are much more detailed and clear in their assertions.


Interesting; I wonder if the penalty for committing fraud and falsifying election results carries a greater or lesser penalty???

It would seem to me it's a far more serious offense.


+6 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Ahem..

hereistheevidence.com...

That site is packed to the gills with voter fraud evidence for the lefties to chew on and b*tch about. But I have a feeling that the Trump team has other, more indisputable evidence that simply won't be shared with the media.

And why in the hell should it?



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Replace "Crown vs. Smith" with "State vs. Smith". The only "affidavit" you'll see are from the crown or state, along with "charges". They're the only sort of "affidavit" that hold any weight in law, when it comes to such matters. No "court of law" or any other government run organization will "convict" itself for/of complacency. Everyone knows who signes their paycheck! ... "Judges" ain't no different.
First clue?.. Any man that thinks he needs to wear a woman's nightgown to "judge"? Has bigger issues, greater than his own "judgment".

"Judge Judie's" nightgown is cute on her though!



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I imagine it varies by state.



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Thanks 4 the link

a reply to: AgarthaSeed



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: carewemust

So these people were "ordered" to commit fraud and they said "ok", "sure" and continued to do so? Ummm what and why? Also why in only Wayne County which they would have won anyway?


One has to ask what job was Miss Michigan assigned. Was she a poll watcher? Maybe they had to keep telling her, "it's not your job to check signatures or ask for ID"! Maybe she was also a designated watcher during the tabulation, and they had to keep telling her that it's "not her job to validate the ballots, or double check signatures."

I mean, one has to ask.


edit on 23-11-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The fellow behind that database seems like an interesting guy. He won a cool half million in 2016 betting on Trump. Wonder if he made any bets this year?


BREAKING: Top Lawyer Releases Archive of 2020 Fraud Evidence (UPDATED)



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Maybe this will matter next summer and the congress can ask president Biden about it.



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I'm sick and tired of seeing all of the ridiculous comments about the lack of evidence and these cases being thrown out.

Most of these comments are from people who have no clue how the legal system works. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been studying law from a layman's perspective for a long time, so I could actually explain this to you myself, but, since you would just dismiss it because IANAL, I'll let a real lawyer explain it to you. He goes into detail as to why these affidavits are just the starting point, why you don't need to present underlying evidence, you only need to submit enough to 'state a claim upon which relief may be granted'.

Affidavits are evidence, and all this is required to get a civil case going.

Once a lawsuit is filed, it must survive the usual and expected Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To do this is not a difficult hurdle. Why? Because the Judge must rule on such a motion as if the claims in the affidavits are true. The judge cano not dismiss it because he finds the claims 'far-fetched' or 'without merit' or 'baseless'. He must make his ruling on whether the suit can go forward by asking the question: If the claims are true, would the plaintiff have a case?

So, let's see what the great one has to say on the subject...


You should take it up with Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a longtime and well-known Republican in Pennsylvania, who dismissed Trump's suit on Saturday. He wrote:

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

Apparently he doesn't know as much about the law as you do.

www.cnn.com...

It has been stated numerous times, but the whole idea was to get the case moved up the ladder to the scotus. Losing that case in PA was the path to doing that.

The attorneys in these cases are seasoned veterans. They know what it takes to get where they want this to end up, but they have to play by the rules of the system to get there. Losing a case to get to a higher court is not a new tactic, it has been used by attorneys for a very long time.



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:44 PM
link   
well you heard it here folks definitely will Be Trump .
Matter of fact seeing how every other lawyer Quite all Trump needs to do is come here massive amounts of evidence .
So much that it puts twitter to shame .
To bad courts wont use twitter or ATS but of course Republicans are out to get Trump so its a forgoing conclusion It was Never the demarcates who wanted him to lose but the Republicans .


All the amazing video's and photos here Biden cheated because these people and Trump say so how any judge up to the supreme court would dismiss this is unknown .

One thing nice to know MI certified pa ga Some how AZ has been forgotten so Yes the only place left for Trump to go is the supreme court .

I have a feeling he along with ATS will be sorly disappointed .
But dont worry Biden will only be in 4 years then Trump can run again just not as a demarcate or Republican .
Honstly if all Trump is doing is running elections are boring he will liven it up .



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:51 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

The problem with this (other than everything) is that your one true hope rests with the SCOTUS who is not going to take any case involving this election.

A lot of folks are betting on a 6-3 SCOTUS decision to overturn the results of the election because Trump lost, fair and square. That's not going to happen. It's not going to get within social distancing rules of the SCOTUS.

Let's just keep playing pretend though. The very best you can hope for is that a ruling emerges that enough states are overturned to keep Trump president but the electoral college already voted for Biden. Next, Biden is sworn in by the chief justice himself! Now you've got a constitutional crisis on your hands where the SCOTUS says a duly sworn in president lost the election months ago but the only way to legally remove a president is through impeachment. You think the House, under Nancy Pelosi, is going to do that?

A SCOTUS ruling against a Biden presidency at any point after the electoral college votes would bring our constitutional republic crashing to its knees and likely be the end of American government and the end of America.




top topics



 
55
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join