As for the powell lawsuits, eh.

The lawsuits contained evidence they wanted to present. The judges looked at the lawsuits.

Laches wasn’t about fraud

I mean, yeah the Texas case is your typical Texas Dogma. Not surprised there at all. Totally agree.

It’s not too late to present evidence of fraud. That just seems to be missing.

You still have not looked at my link I see.

Actually many judges don't look at the merits of the suits if they don't pass the litmus test of standing and whatnot.

It’s been spammed many times again I mean court presentable evidence

Most lawsuits I've seen were tossed out because of the requested relief (overturning the election), standing and laches.

Which are litmus tests you do prior to actually delving into the substance of evidence.

This is stuff you do while you presume all of the facts are true on the face of the complaint.

(It is heavily weighted in the favor of the person that filed the lawsuit.)

It's been posted multiple times yet you do not look? AH! Photos, i forgot!

Injunctive Relief is a strict standard.

Isn’t that what meritless refers to? If we assume your facts presented from evidence are true you have no case

Yet they were still dismissed.

That is yes.

We do this very commonly in the legal practice, because if all facts are true and the case has no merit, you dismiss it.

Which is surprisingly common.

They looked at what was presented and said this is speculation it’s not proving what you say it proves. That’s merit based even if they don’t say let’s let you try to prove it

Primarily happens in civil litigation.

Lot of cases didn't make it this far.

They primarily didn't stand the litmus test of if this is even valid to begin with.

The SURE system is an election day system for gathering unofficial vote totals. It is not intended to be a 100% accurate system. This is comparing apples and oranges. This had been confirmed many, many times... yet you don't want to accept the truth about it. AH! Facts bad, I forgot!

If's it's been confirmed so many times can you point me in the right direction? Fascinating that you assume so much about my character.

@Mox, you just advanced to level 5!

https://wjactv.com/amp/news/local/pa-republican-lawmakers-analysis-finds-presidential-election-numbers-dont-add-up

I didn't assume anything... I mimicked your mocking style towards @Dedkraken I figured it was the way you preferred points to be made.

😂

Also on Injunctive Relief is the alleged facts are assumed true the Remedy requested may not match the Harm.

You did though, you said he didn't want to accept the truth, thats a big assumption about his character.

If you scroll up, you'll notice that the link he just posted is the first non picture he's posted for a source.... lol My mocking style is based in evidence and experience. Yours seems based in incomplete data.

It was obvious satire... Dedkraken had indicated it had been spammed here multiple times. HB made a claim that he did not look at the claim - I was mirroring the way the point was made. That's all.

I think you will find that I am rarely accused of having incomplete data...

Another good point, yes.

So from what I gather in this, is that they are saying the data from Sure was incomplete due to missing counties. Then why is the image citing that only a few small counties remain? Keep in mind, the individuals making the statement are ones who would inevitably be apart of the fraud, should it exist at all. Just saying.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/ Elements of cause of action are very numerous and complicated.

And the opposite can be said? All the people that said the problem existed were republicans?

Incomplete.

That would be easily provable... They could subpoena the people who built the SURE system and have them confirm or deny that the disparity system data is a very clear indication that fraud had occurred.

Usually not so much...@Mox