The election litigation thread

[Dutch Oven]

We will have to disagree then. To start, I'm pretty sure she is wrong about "preponderance of evidence" being the standard. Then there is the long, rambling conspiracy theory intro.
Many of her "facts" seem irrelevant or just false. Some seem to evidence-less assertions. She has people submitting things that are proper procedure as if it is suspicious because they don't understand it. She has people complaining about votes being switched in the audit and demands that things have to be decertified because of that even though the audit results don't get used, the original ones do unless the audit implies an error requiring a change (which it didn't).

The legal theory that gets her to the idea that the state just needs to therefore declare Trump the winner doesn't follow from what she asserts is the process being tainted but we don't know how.
The argument that "look, all we know is that the whole thing is messed up so it should be thrown out" is better, and she does lead with that for at least one complaint. Some of the counts don't have anything.
The list of 14 requests at the end seems like a sort of wild wish list at times.

Arguing that an entire state's election needs to be annulled is a big fucking deal and you need really strong arguments supporting that this is the appropriate solution. That's the part I also find weird, she nowhere backs up the idea that previous election law or decision supports this as the appropriate remedy.

If every fact she pled was accepted by the court, and every expert opinion she is relying upon found to be reliable, would you still think she hasn't pled enough to justify decertification of the election (setting aside the other remedies she asks for)? If not, I'm not sure when you could ever challenge an election based on circumstantial evidence of fraud and/or unreliability of electoral processes. It isn't usual to require a plaintiff to produce direct evidence of covert wrongdoing. Usually persuasive circumstantial evidence is sufficent to shift the burden to the responding party to provide a plausible innocent explanation for events which appear, prima facie, to be unlawful.

 

[Valcazar]

If every fact she pled was accepted by the court, and every expert opinion she is relying upon found to be reliable, would you still think she hasn't pled enough to justify decertification of the election (setting aside the other remedies she asks for)?

I honestly don't know. I have no idea what the current discussion of remedies are and what precedent is. Maybe she does. Maybe she is right to jump right there. I'm not sure there is even a precedent for "well, we aren't sure about the mail in votes so all mail in votes should be discarded".

Like I said, the argument that it should be decertified and not counted is better. "We just can't tell because the whole thing is a mess and so in good conscience cannot declare any winner" is something that I think is extreme but if you have the evidence, it is warranted.

The argument that it should just be handed to Trump isn't really justified by a whole bunch of "we didn't get to see what happened but we suspect it is something bad".

Actual evidence of votes being switched from Trump to Biden - as in "we know these votes were switched and can do the math to give Trump the victory" then yes, "hand it to the other guy" seems fine. She doesn't actually even allege that though, from what I can tell. She says that maybe a bunch of votes were vulnerable and if you add up all of those it is more than the margin of victory.

It isn't usual to require a plaintiff to produce direct evidence of covert wrongdoing. Usually persuasive circumstantial evidence is sufficent to shift the burden to the responding party to provide a plausible innocent explanation for events which appear, prima facie, to be unlawful.

What do you base that on?
Leaving aside that we disagree about this being remotely persuasive circumstantial evidence, what makes you think that if I as plaintiff have sufficiently given evidence, the defense now has the burden to provide a plausible innocent explanation?


Anyway, we should perhaps be looking at the Michigan case, since she actually filed that one? The Georgia one still doesn't appear officially and the Cobb County GOP just said that she included them as a plaintiff even though they asked to be removed.

 

[Dutch Oven]

What do you base that on?
Leaving aside that we disagree about this being remotely persuasive circumstantial evidence, what makes you think that if I as plaintiff have sufficiently given evidence, the defense now has the burden to provide a plausible innocent explanation?

My language is couched around the issues before the court being fraud and/or electoral negligence by an official purportedly acting under a statutory power, but I am just applying the ordinary rules of evidence regarding shifting of the burden of proof in a civil matter to that context. The burden can be shifted based on circumstantial evidence alone, if the evidence is sufficiently probative.

Anyway, we should perhaps be looking at the Michigan case, since she actually filed that one? The Georgia one still doesn't appear officially and the Cobb County GOP just said that she included them as a plaintiff even though they asked to be removed.

I will dig that up, but I'm 100% sure the expert affidavits will be the same, and the affiants on circumstantial evidence of electoral misconduct/negligence will be "same script, different actors".

 

[Dutch Oven]

Here's the Michigan filing, complete with redacted affidavits:

King v. Whitmer, 2:20-cv-13134 - CourtListener.com

Docket for King v. Whitmer, 2:20-cv-13134 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

It's much shorter, so I'll have to see what's been left out of this one.

 

[Fun For All]

Ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell files lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia

Sidney Powell, the lawyer recently distanced from the Trump campaign, on Wednesday filed typo-filled lawsuits in both Michigan and Georgia alleging election fraud. The suits alleged probl…

thehill.com

 

[Fun For All]

Trump’s lawyers just performed another embarrassing "election fraud” show

The president himself even called in to cheerlead.

www.motherjones.com

 

[bver_hunter]

Trump’s lawyers just performed another embarrassing "election fraud” show

The president himself even called in to cheerlead.

www.motherjones.com

Trump is a clown show. He just cannot zip up and behave in a more Presidential way. Everyone in their heart of hearts knows that Biden won and did so handsomely. All Trump is doing is to keep this Election Fraud Conspiracy Theory going, so that he can draw in donations from his cash strapped base who are living in denial. There are a few of his followers on this Board!!

 

[Dutch Oven]

Trump is a clown show. He just cannot zip up and behave in a more Presidential way. Everyone in their heart of hearts knows that Biden won and did so handsomely. All Trump is doing is to keep this Election Fraud Conspiracy Theory going, so that he can draw in donations from his cash strapped base who are living in denial. There are a few of his followers on this Board!!

In your "heart", are those hundreds of everyday Americans who provided affidavits to his counsel, and to the counsel of other litigants, as well as the expert witnesses who have also provided affidavits, all liars?

We've gone past the point where you can pretend it's all bluster and no evidence. You have to deal with the evidence now. Why is it all wrong?

 

[bver_hunter]

In your "heart", are those hundreds of everyday Americans who provided affidavits to his counsel, and to the counsel of other litigants, as well as the expert witnesses who have also provided affidavits, all liars?

We've gone past the point where you can pretend it's all bluster and no evidence. You have to deal with the evidence now. Why is it all wrong?

What evidence has been provided in all the Court cases so far? Why have they lost all of them except some one or two for technical reasons?

Read about this statement by Trump's 100 security Officials that they posted in relation to these elections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-statement-from-100-plus-former-national-security-officials/a559eb00-6e6c-4671-ab49-7bc9ccb967dc/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

Now tell us why they are not even buying this so called "Evidence" that you claim exists??

 

[Leimonis]

In your "heart", are those hundreds of everyday Americans who provided affidavits to his counsel, and to the counsel of other litigants, as well as the expert witnesses who have also provided affidavits, all liars?

We've gone past the point where you can pretend it's all bluster and no evidence. You have to deal with the evidence now. Why is it all wrong?

hey, do you want to put any money on trump's win? I'd put $1,000 against your $100 and let the justice prevail

 

[Dutch Oven]

What evidence has been provided in all the Court cases so far? Why have they lost all of them except some one or two for technical reasons?

Read about this statement by Trump's 100 security Officials that they posted in relation to these elections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-statement-from-100-plus-former-national-security-officials/a559eb00-6e6c-4671-ab49-7bc9ccb967dc/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

Now tell us why they are not even buying this so called "Evidence" that you claim exists??

Beaver, I posted 2 court filings today, one in Georgia and one in Michigan, that lay out evidence in great detail. All you have to do is read the filings. I doubt that even one of these former officials you reference has looked at the evidence. Why would you listen to them?

All these cases are part of a litigation strategy. Each suit addresses a slightly different issue. Most of the early ones weren't about fraud at all. All the while, lawyers were gathering evidence to support their strongest claims. I'm not even sure they're finished, but they certainly have started filing supporting evidence with their most recent suits. Have a look. Then you won't be speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

[Dutch Oven]

hey, do you want to put any money on trump's win? I'd put $1,000 against your $100 and let the justice prevail

Here's some free advice. Never bet on the outcome of a legal proceeding. If they were as predictable as people like to pretend, no one would ever go to court. The MORE you know about the legal system, the less predictable you will think it is.

 

[Leimonis]

Trump is a clown show. He just cannot zip up and behave in a more Presidential way. Everyone in their heart of hearts knows that Biden won and did so handsomely. All Trump is doing is to keep this Election Fraud Conspiracy Theory going, so that he can draw in donations from his cash strapped base who are living in denial. There are a few of his followers on this Board!!

another thing that is funny to me is that trump positively claims that he won and Biden lost. I mean, how on Earth would one know that, even assuming there WAS some fraud or miscounting or whatever? Are you God who knows what all the "legal" ballots were?
Isn't it in a way the same as with Russian 2016 election interference, i.e. while we can say there was some foul play (which in that case ACTUALLY was), it is impossible to calculate the exact result of it?

 

[Dutch Oven]

another thing that is funny to me is that trump positively claims that he won and Biden lost. I mean, how on Earth would one know that, even assuming there WAS some fraud or miscounting or whatever? Are you God who knows what all the "legal" ballots were?
Isn't it in a way the same as with Russian 2016 election interference, i.e. while we can say there was some foul play (which in that case ACTUALLY was), it is impossible to calculate the exact result of it?

Isn't the right remedy a special election, if you can't tell who should have won?

 

[bver_hunter]

Beaver, I posted 2 court filings today, one in Georgia and one in Michigan, that lay out evidence in great detail. All you have to do is read the filings. I doubt that even one of these former officials you reference has looked at the evidence. Why would you listen to them?

All these cases are part of a litigation strategy. Each suit addresses a slightly different issue. Most of the early ones weren't about fraud at all. All the while, lawyers were gathering evidence to support their strongest claims. I'm not even sure they're finished, but they certainly have started filing supporting evidence with their most recent suits. Have a look. Then you won't be speaking from a position of ignorance.

Hey Oven alias Bud Plug, you are sounding more and more like him with your insults!! We know what evidence you were providing in the James Fields case and how you stood by his so called "Innocence"!!

If the so called "Typo Filled Evidence" had any standings to turn round the elections that have already been certified, then there would be some credibility. Are you saying that these Republican Security Officials that served under Republican Governments are not aware of Rudy's shenanigans?? You are the one that buys all those alt right conspiracies freely floating on the internet. Period!!

Read again:

Ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell files lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia

Sidney Powell, the lawyer recently distanced from the Trump campaign, on Wednesday filed typo-filled lawsuits in both Michigan and Georgia alleging election fraud. The suits alleged probl…

thehill.com

 

[mandrill]

Now you've convinced me that you are not a lawyer. At least not a litigator.

This filing was not rife with spelling errors. There were 3-4 over a 104 page brief, which was an emergency motion, and undoubtedly could not be fully prepared until the supporting affidavits were prepared (not weeks ago).

You got me, Dutch. I'm not really a lawyer. You're the only person who's ever seen through my flimsy charade.

And Trump really IS the greatest president since Abe Lincoln.

 

[Dutch Oven]

If the so called "evidence" had any standings to turn round the elections that have already been certified, then there would be some credibility. Are you saying that these Republican Security Officials that served under Republican Governments are not aware of Rudy's shenanigans?? You are the one that buys all those alt right conspiracies freely floating on the internet. Period!!

Beaver, if you are ignorant of the evidence being put before the courts, that's just a matter of fact, not an insult. The good news is that you can fix that just by reading.

You could characterize a claim as a conspiracy theory if no evidence was being offered to support it. We're past that point. Evidence is being offered. Now the only decision is whether that evidence is reliable and sufficient to support the relief sought. You'll have to work up a new vocabulary if you want to take issue with what is being relied upon. Exclamation point! (Sorry, but I find it funny that you say "period" and then follow it with different punctuation. If it's intentional, kudos to you.)

 

[bver_hunter]

another thing that is funny to me is that trump positively claims that he won and Biden lost. I mean, how on Earth would one know that, even assuming there WAS some fraud or miscounting or whatever? Are you God who knows what all the "legal" ballots were?
Isn't it in a way the same as with Russian 2016 election interference, i.e. while we can say there was some foul play (which in that case ACTUALLY was), it is impossible to calculate the exact result of it?

Well his Trumptard Cult Followers still but that myth that this elections were fraudulent, even with some shady so called evidence from Sidney Powell. Why has Guiliani even distanced himself from her?? She brings up Chavez who died in 2013. Seriously and the likes of dutch O buys it??

 

[Dutch Oven]

You got me, Dutch. I'm not really a lawyer. You're the only person who's ever seen through my flimsy charade.

And Trump really IS the greatest president since Abe Lincoln.

Well, as I've said before, it's really a fruitless point to persue. Certainly an unwise thing to try to prove. Either what you say will be persuasive, or not, and only you will ever really know what you do for a living.

If Trump is successful in exposing the vulnerabilities of the American electoral system, and even some of those holes are plugged, he might just go down as one of the greatest Presidents, even if he loses.

 

[bver_hunter]

Beaver, if you are ignorant of the evidence being put before the courts, that's just a matter of fact, not an insult. The good news is that you can fix that just by reading.

You could characterize a claim as a conspiracy theory if no evidence was being offered to support it. We're past that point. Evidence is being offered. Now the only decision is whether that evidence is reliable and sufficient to support the relief sought. You'll have to work up a new vocabulary if you want to take issue with what is being relied upon. Exclamation point! (Sorry, but I find it funny that you say "period" and then follow it with different punctuation. If it's intentional, kudos to you.)

Hey D oven, can you explain why the same Powell was disowned by Rudy and his team of lawyers and is now going out on her own. Hugo Chavez who died in 2013, is being brought up in these elections?? You can see the ignorance and how the alt right platforms induce this brainwashed segments into your head. So you are saying that this will be a game changer. Will warm up my popcorn just like I did in the James Fields case so we can see who has the last laugh!!

You have not come across Thesaurus Dictionary and the Synonym for "Period" from your arguments. Maybe you should do some research in this respect!!