6 ms·

> No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable c

> No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims. A cognizable claim is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. Now, tell me what's the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing a rape that make the former not meeting the basic criteria of viability, whereas the latter does meet them? > The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered. Sure, but if actions of one of the two parties lead to the constitutional crisis, the court had better investigate which side is the lying one, don't you think so? > It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. And to establish whether there was a perjury, you need to investigate it through a formal process of hearings and other elements of the due process. > There were plenty of hearings Dismissing the case is not hearing of the case, there were other hearings related to the matter, but not the legal hearing of the case with witnesses attending and being interrogated.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Sure, a cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability f No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. “Standing” and “failure to state a claim” are grounds for dismissal than are about not having a legally cognizable claim, and which come before any assessment of the viability of the claim. "laches" (that, assuming the claim was valid, it is barred by unreasonable delay by the complaining party which would cause unreasonable harm to the interests of the defendant or third parties which would not have occurred had the claim been made timely) is a similar, though distinct, ground. (A lot of the post-election challenges to procedures which were well-known before the election were barred by laches, with the harm relied on being the denial of voting rights of voters who relied on the processes to vote.) > Now, tell me what’s the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing rape That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits; the fraud stories that the campaign claims that the affidavits support weren’t advanced in court, or were withdrawn voluntarily.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  > No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. I took the reference to basic criteria of viability from the legal body of knowledge. Check your premises. Besides, alleged election fraud taken on its face states a possible violation of the law, the current President (represented by his lawyers) (who in turn represents the people voted him) is (are) someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law. And the court has the power to remedy it. Essentially, what you say are the same things as the basic criteria of viability. > That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits That's factually false, as there were official court case filings, that carry their unique numbers, and the claims made in those filings are backed by signed affidavits. One of these filings is the Case No Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB from 11/09/20: https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20201110/trumpcampaignvPA--complaint.pdf https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/2020111... The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated. And here's one of the vast number of signed affidavits that have their case numbers aligned with the main case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/31-8_natalie_price.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/31-8...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    “The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated.” Investigation is not a remedy given by courts. Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > Investigation is not a remedy given by courts. where do I say that an investigation in and on itself is a remedy given by courts? The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is. > Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court. Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation. Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Sure, a cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability f No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. “Standing” and “failure to state a claim” are grounds for dismissal than are about not having a legally cognizable claim, and which come before any assessment of the viability of the claim. "laches" (that, assuming the claim was valid, it is barred by unreasonable delay by the complaining party which would cause unreasonable harm to the interests of the defendant or third parties which would not have occurred had the claim been made timely) is a similar, though distinct, ground. (A lot of the post-election challenges to procedures which were well-known before the election were barred by laches, with the harm relied on being the denial of voting rights of voters who relied on the processes to vote.) > Now, tell me what’s the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing rape That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits; the fraud stories that the campaign claims that the affidavits support weren’t advanced in court, or were withdrawn voluntarily.

ghostwriter 6y ago
> No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. I took the reference to basic criteria of viability from the legal body of knowledge. Check your premises. Besides, alleged election fraud taken on its face states a possible violation of the law, the current President (represented by his lawyers) (who in turn represents the people voted him) is (are) someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law. And the court has the power to remedy it. Essentially, what you say are the same things as the basic criteria of viability. > That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits That's factually false, as there were official court case filings, that carry their unique numbers, and the claims made in those filings are backed by signed affidavits. One of these filings is the Case No Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB from 11/09/20: https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20201110/trumpcampaignvPA--complaint.pdf https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/2020111... The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated. And here's one of the vast number of signed affidavits that have their case numbers aligned with the main case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/31-8_natalie_price.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/31-8...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  “The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated.” Investigation is not a remedy given by courts. Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > Investigation is not a remedy given by courts. where do I say that an investigation in and on itself is a remedy given by courts? The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is. > Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court. Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation. Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.