A few points of clarification, not that they change the fundamental points made by Erick's post.
1. The Lin Wood case ruling was based on two primary factors : 1. Lack of standing. 2. The lawsuit was filed 9 months after consent degree and after the election - see https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woo…
A few points of clarification, not that they change the fundamental points made by Erick's post.
1. The Lin Wood case ruling was based on two primary factors : 1. Lack of standing. 2. The lawsuit was filed 9 months after consent degree and after the election - see https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/ . As far as I know, a potentially unlawful law doesn't have a statute of limitations for when it can be legally challenged. Wood has implied he intends to appeal as he believes as a GA citizen he has the standing and Constitutional right to challenge a potentially unlawful election agreement that was not approved by the GA legislature.
2. The PA case in federal court is not dismissed yet, although it clearly did not go Rudy's way. A WP article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html ) stated " Aronchick [[representing PA counties} concluded by urging Brann the judge: “Dismiss this case. Please, dismiss this case. So we can move on.” Brann declined to do so, setting a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday for the president’s team to file a motion opposing the election officials’ attempt to dismiss the lawsuit." The PA case was frst presented by attorneys who were made to quit by pressure from outside anti-Trump groups, so Guliani is not the original attorney. Jonathan Turley has suggested harassing lawyers to get them to quit is not very polite legal behavior ( https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/16/the-first-thing-we-do-the-lawless-campaign-to-harass-lawyers-representing-the-trump-campaign/ ) because the fairness of our justice system is based on every client having the right to qualified legal representation.
3. Sidney Powell made some very serious claims about Dominion that Jonathan Turley believes opened themselves up to a possible defamation lawsuit, which would force Trump's attorneys to offer proof for the allegations or face severe consequences (as with Lin Wood's lawsuits for various media organizations that had defamed his client Nicholas Sandman). If Powell wishes to present her evidence regarding Dominion in court instead of in a public press conference, she is entitled to that right. But if she cannot prove her allegations in court, she can suffer major consequences in addition to public ridicule.Nevertheless, she seems intent on staying the course.
A few points of clarification, not that they change the fundamental points made by Erick's post.
1. The Lin Wood case ruling was based on two primary factors : 1. Lack of standing. 2. The lawsuit was filed 9 months after consent degree and after the election - see https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/ . As far as I know, a potentially unlawful law doesn't have a statute of limitations for when it can be legally challenged. Wood has implied he intends to appeal as he believes as a GA citizen he has the standing and Constitutional right to challenge a potentially unlawful election agreement that was not approved by the GA legislature.
2. The PA case in federal court is not dismissed yet, although it clearly did not go Rudy's way. A WP article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html ) stated " Aronchick [[representing PA counties} concluded by urging Brann the judge: “Dismiss this case. Please, dismiss this case. So we can move on.” Brann declined to do so, setting a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday for the president’s team to file a motion opposing the election officials’ attempt to dismiss the lawsuit." The PA case was frst presented by attorneys who were made to quit by pressure from outside anti-Trump groups, so Guliani is not the original attorney. Jonathan Turley has suggested harassing lawyers to get them to quit is not very polite legal behavior ( https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/16/the-first-thing-we-do-the-lawless-campaign-to-harass-lawyers-representing-the-trump-campaign/ ) because the fairness of our justice system is based on every client having the right to qualified legal representation.
3. Sidney Powell made some very serious claims about Dominion that Jonathan Turley believes opened themselves up to a possible defamation lawsuit, which would force Trump's attorneys to offer proof for the allegations or face severe consequences (as with Lin Wood's lawsuits for various media organizations that had defamed his client Nicholas Sandman). If Powell wishes to present her evidence regarding Dominion in court instead of in a public press conference, she is entitled to that right. But if she cannot prove her allegations in court, she can suffer major consequences in addition to public ridicule.Nevertheless, she seems intent on staying the course.