(05-14-2021, 12:46 AM)p_rushing Wrote:

(05-13-2021, 06:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: You want me to search out all these cases in an attempt to find what you are alleging?  No.  

It's like if you told me that Bigfoot exists, and I said, okay, show me BigFoot, and you reply: go out and search the woods, he's out there.  No, I don't think I want to do that. 

Now, when you say, every case that was dismissed for lack of standing is an example of judges saying: you can't show me that you would have won, so I am not hearing the case, that's not what the judge is ruling when he cites "lack of standing."  Lack of standing means you are not the right person to be bringing the suit.  If you witness a person in Walmart slipping on a wet floor, and you file suit, your case would be dismissed for lack of standing because you are not the injured party.  This is a Constitutional requirement and without it, anyone could sue anyone for anything, even if they are not the one who was injured.  

Here is an article you can read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...on_v._Kemp

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2] Among the judges who dismissed the aforementioned lawsuits were judges appointed by Trump himself.[3]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[5] and "without merit".[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Here's an example of a ruling- Boland vs Raffensperger.   Here is a key point the judge made in her ruling:  

[font=sans-serif]Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.[/font]

You can read the entire ruling here:  

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boland_v._Raffensperger

Look at the lawsuits that Powell and Wood filed. They filed thousands of pages of statements, signed affidavits, evidence of the fraud, etc. They were all dismissed without reviewing the evidence. You can't prove the fraud without doing a full audit of the election. There is enough evidence from people involved to have at least issued a stay in order investigate.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You say they filed thousands of pages of statements, affidavits, etc.  Have you read any of those statements or affidavits?  Or are you just taking their word that those statements and affidavits are somehow compelling, and, can you cite a specific case where a judge refused to look at that so-called evidence?  

From what I have read, those affidavits contained statements like, "the music was too loud" or "I don't think my vote was counted" or "a poll worker told me to not stand so close."   One of them said the person saw a box of ballots opened, and the ballots looked "too clean."  

Again, I need a specific case where a judge refused to look at this so-called evidence.   I have only read a few rulings, but the ones I did read, the judges stated, among many reasons for dismissing the cases, "lack of evidence."  That tells me they did look at that so-called evidence.  

And, as far as Powell and Wood go, they were so wacky and made so many ridiculous statements that Trump fired them.

---