4 ms·

> 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 includ

> 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
    > Election offence is criminal offence Yes, there are criminal election offenses. But those are prosecuted exclusively by public prosecutors, not by campaigns or candidates (even incumbent ones that oversee criminal prosecution authorities) in civil lawsuits in their role as candidates. Nor, even when they are investigated and prosecuted as crimes, do they need to file a case before pursuing search warrants as part of an investigation. > Consider there’s a burglary, you suspect a person and you’ve obtained a 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. You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you. > And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. No, you can’t get the warrant at all, full stop. The police can get a warrant, if you give them information about the witnesses (which doesn’t even need sworn statements), and they think its worth following up on, and they present the witness statements (and any other evidence they gather if they investigate) in a warrant application to a judge and the judge agrees there is probable cause. You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > Yes, there are criminal election offenses. > You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process. You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not. How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court? There are wtinesses that need to be heard during the official process, and there's warrants to be issued to bring additional evidence of a criminal offence, or perhaps there's no criminal offence, but it has to be established during the initial hearings conducted at the court. > You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you. sure, that's what I mean, the police and other authorities have to go there and bring (if it exists) an evidence to the court in addition to those that have been filed with the case. That's not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
      - 6y ago

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
  > Election offence is criminal offence Yes, there are criminal election offenses. But those are prosecuted exclusively by public prosecutors, not by campaigns or candidates (even incumbent ones that oversee criminal prosecution authorities) in civil lawsuits in their role as candidates. Nor, even when they are investigated and prosecuted as crimes, do they need to file a case before pursuing search warrants as part of an investigation. > Consider there’s a burglary, you suspect a person and you’ve obtained a 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. You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you. > And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. No, you can’t get the warrant at all, full stop. The police can get a warrant, if you give them information about the witnesses (which doesn’t even need sworn statements), and they think its worth following up on, and they present the witness statements (and any other evidence they gather if they investigate) in a warrant application to a judge and the judge agrees there is probable cause. You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > Yes, there are criminal election offenses. > You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process. You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not. How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court? There are wtinesses that need to be heard during the official process, and there's warrants to be issued to bring additional evidence of a criminal offence, or perhaps there's no criminal offence, but it has to be established during the initial hearings conducted at the court. > You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you. sure, that's what I mean, the police and other authorities have to go there and bring (if it exists) an evidence to the court in addition to those that have been filed with the case. That's not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
    - 6y ago