3 ms·

> They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist. > If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement

> They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist. > If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement authorities, who decide how to follow up, and may eventually file a criminal case. The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court, they were dismissed due to technicalities rather than hearings. And no one checked the paper trails (which is not enoguh to establish legitimacy, as the paper needs to have correct signatures and other credentials) in the swing states and reported back to the court under penalty of perjury. There was no final judgement on the matter that would establish whether there was wrongdoing and if it needs to be re-qualified as a criminal one, or whether those who signed affidavits may be committing wrongdoing themselves. There was only a final judgement regarding the prcedure of the filing and whether there's standing. The end result of it is a constitutional crisis, where institutions begin to lose their own "standing". Authorities lose authority if they do not demonstrate a just process, regardless of the actual technicalities that take place during case filings. Is there a clear legal path to follow to file the correct case? Yes there is. There's also a legal path to follow when it comes to elections, as well as there are articles of the Constitution that define whether states or state legislatures make and change election laws. Were they followed as thoroughly as you propose the other side to follow the procedures related to case filings? They weren't. The end result is today's events.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court, Yes, they were taken by the court. That the actual specific filings were, generally, found to be legally deficient when taken by the court is different than them not being taken. > they were dismissed due to technicalities “You haven’t stated an claim that, if taken as true, would involve a violation of the law” is not a technicality. “You have not stated a claim to which, if taken as true, there would be a remedy under the law that a court could give” is not a technicality. “You have not stated a claim in which, if taken as true, you are the legally harmed party, and thus entitled to seek a remedy” is not a technicality. These are all fundamental, (and, at least in the federal courts, Constitutional), limits on the applicability of the judicial power. “You have deliberately and unreasonably delayed this claim from when, if it is taken as true, you knew about it and could have acted on it, such that, even were it valid, it would no longer have a remedy that would not unduly impact the legal rights of others,” is not a technicality, its a rule of justice.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court, Yes, they were taken by the court. That the actual specific filings were, generally, found to be legally deficient when taken by the court is different than them not being taken. > they were dismissed due to technicalities “You haven’t stated an claim that, if taken as true, would involve a violation of the law” is not a technicality. “You have not stated a claim to which, if taken as true, there would be a remedy under the law that a court could give” is not a technicality. “You have not stated a claim in which, if taken as true, you are the legally harmed party, and thus entitled to seek a remedy” is not a technicality. These are all fundamental, (and, at least in the federal courts, Constitutional), limits on the applicability of the judicial power. “You have deliberately and unreasonably delayed this claim from when, if it is taken as true, you knew about it and could have acted on it, such that, even were it valid, it would no longer have a remedy that would not unduly impact the legal rights of others,” is not a technicality, its a rule of justice.