3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    > The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is. No, due process in civil litigation does not include other people investigating for the litigant. (Discovery from the other party, sure, but that’s not investigation.) Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the 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. No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases. > Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed. Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”), which, if true, would meet the criteria of some legal wrong that can be remedied, are a threshold requirement for a case. This has always been the rule, its not some new problem that first emerged for Trump.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases. Election offence is criminal offence, afaik that's true for all (all english-speaking nations?) bodies that inherit the English model of the rule of law: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/election-offences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/election-offences https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes... https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download > Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court. > Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”) It's always been more than that, since the affidavits from witnesses have detailed particular locations, times, people, and the means used by those people, that the witnesses suspect to be instances of election fraud. Consider there's a burglary, you suspect a person and you've obtained sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect's premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so. And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. That's exactly the scenario of the alleged election fraud by mail-in ballots, where votes were (allegedly) stolen by some suspected actors with some suspected means.

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
  > The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is. No, due process in civil litigation does not include other people investigating for the litigant. (Discovery from the other party, sure, but that’s not investigation.) Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the 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. No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases. > Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed. Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”), which, if true, would meet the criteria of some legal wrong that can be remedied, are a threshold requirement for a case. This has always been the rule, its not some new problem that first emerged for Trump.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases. Election offence is criminal offence, afaik that's true for all (all english-speaking nations?) bodies that inherit the English model of the rule of law: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/election-offences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/election-offences https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes... https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download > Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court. > Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”) It's always been more than that, since the affidavits from witnesses have detailed particular locations, times, people, and the means used by those people, that the witnesses suspect to be instances of election fraud. Consider there's a burglary, you suspect a person and you've obtained sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect's premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so. And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. That's exactly the scenario of the alleged election fraud by mail-in ballots, where votes were (allegedly) stolen by some suspected actors with some suspected means.