The mueller report is catching up

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're proving my point

THANK YOU

Knock it off in Arizona, you're not helping.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Knock it off in Arizona, you're not helping.

Needs to be done in every state

Need to get into those machines

[Gravydoo II]

You thought I wouldnt read it? Lookie here.
According to the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiff Eric Ostegren is a
credentialed election challenger under MCL 168.730. Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleges that
plaintiff Ostegren was “excluded from the counting board during the absent voter ballot review
process.” The complaint does not specify when, where, or by whom plaintiff was excluded. Nor
does the complaint provide any details about why the alleged exclusion occurred.


So I can submit a case that says "G13 robbed my house" and not specify anything else? Not the date, not the time, not the address, how I knew it was you, etc. Yeah fortunately you dont get to make frivolous claims and expect the supreme court to look at it. They also said they didnt get "meaningful access" which is not a legal term, it does not mean anything at all. They dont specify what that means. You also dont get to break the rules by not wearing a mask and expect to hang around, then cry about getting thrown out for breaking rules you agreed to.

You didnt read it, did you? Its all right there, plain english. You're using that as your evidence for why this is an injustice... When it explains exactly why the cases were laughed out of court.

Next.

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You thought I wouldnt read it? Lookie here.
According to the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiff Eric Ostegren is a
credentialed election challenger under MCL 168.730. Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleges that
plaintiff Ostegren was “excluded from the counting board during the absent voter ballot review
process.” The complaint does not specify when, where, or by whom plaintiff was excluded. Nor
does the complaint provide any details about why the alleged exclusion occurred.


So I can submit a case that says "G13 robbed my house" and not specify anything else? Not the date, not the time, not the address, how I knew it was you, etc. Yeah fortunately you dont get to make frivolous claims and expect the supreme court to look at it. They also said they didnt get "meaningful access" which is not a legal term, it does not mean anything at all. They dont specify what that means. You also dont get to break the rules by not wearing a mask and expect to hang around, then cry about getting thrown out for breaking rules you agreed to.

Next.

Was the Michigan SOS order to extend the MIV deadline legal under state law? Feds have very little say in how states conduct their elections, so this is a bit of a quagmire.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You thought I wouldnt read it? Lookie here.
According to the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiff Eric Ostegren is a
credentialed election challenger under MCL 168.730. Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleges that
plaintiff Ostegren was “excluded from the counting board during the absent voter ballot review
process.” The complaint does not specify when, where, or by whom plaintiff was excluded. Nor
does the complaint provide any details about why the alleged exclusion occurred.


So I can submit a case that says "G13 robbed my house" and not specify anything else? Not the date, not the time, not the address, how I knew it was you, etc. Yeah fortunately you dont get to make frivolous claims and expect the supreme court to look at it. They also said they didnt get "meaningful access" which is not a legal term, it does not mean anything at all. They dont specify what that means. You also dont get to break the rules by not wearing a mask and expect to hang around, then cry about getting thrown out for breaking rules you agreed to.

Next.

You're not proving evidence was allowed in a courtroom

[Gravydoo II]

Not to mention this.
MOOTNESS
Moreover, even if the requested relief could issue against the Secretary of State, the Court
notes that the complaint and emergency motion were not filed until approximately 4:00 p.m. on
November 4, 2020—despite being announced to various media outlets much earlier in the day. By
the time this action was filed, the votes had largely been counted, and the counting is now
complete. Accordingly, and even assuming the requested relief were available against the
Secretary of State—and overlooking the problems with the factual and evidentiary record noted
above—the matter is now moot, as it is impossible to issue the requested relief. See Gleason v
Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 314; 917 NW2d 685 (2018)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 4, 2020 emergency motion for
declaratory judgment is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene is
DENIED as MOOT.


But here we go. So I took criminal justice in high school and they didnt explain ANYTHING about court documents or how to read them but some how my antifa super soldier brain can make sense of this.

Basically, they said "since you waited til 4pm, after a shitload of votes were counted, you started to lose, you tried to file this as emergency relief without filling out your paperwork properly. Thanks for wasting americas time."

[Gravydoo II]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Was the Michigan SOS order to extend the MIV deadline legal under state law? Feds have very little say in how states conduct their elections, so this is a bit of a quagmire.

States rights are only good when republicans like them. When states change the law to help more people vote in a pandemic, thats bad, according to republicans. More people voting = bad. Feds have no say in how states conduct their elections, its true. If they changed the law and made it legal, its legal.

[Gravydoo II]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're not proving evidence was allowed in a courtroom

You cant smear shit all over your job application and expect them to take it and call you. Why would you expect the same from a court? Why didnt they fill out their paperwork properly??

Sounds like you need to ask rudy and kraken wrangler why they couldnt do the most simple part of being a lawyer. Getting the date, time, and what happened, would have been extremely helpful, dont you think?

Instead we got "we didnt get meanful access" and "they maked me go home cause i broke the rules i agreed to". When?? Where?? What happened?? Who did? What was their name?

Thats day 1 shit man. I remain unconvinced. I'm not even going to insult you because you tried and i respect that. I'm not even being sarcastic. FINALLY someone fucking tried. Everyone else ran like a bitch but you didnt. I take it back and I owe someone a 20.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to mention this.
MOOTNESS
Moreover, even if the requested relief could issue against the Secretary of State, the Court
notes that the complaint and emergency motion were not filed until approximately 4:00 p.m. on
November 4, 2020—despite being announced to various media outlets much earlier in the day. By
the time this action was filed, the votes had largely been counted, and the counting is now
complete. Accordingly, and even assuming the requested relief were available against the
Secretary of State—and overlooking the problems with the factual and evidentiary record noted
above—the matter is now moot, as it is impossible to issue the requested relief. See Gleason v
Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 314; 917 NW2d 685 (2018)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 4, 2020 emergency motion for
declaratory judgment is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene is
DENIED as MOOT.


But here we go. So I took criminal justice in high school and they didnt explain ANYTHING about court documents or how to read them but some how my antifa super soldier brain can make sense of this.

Basically, they said "since you waited til 4pm, after a shitload of votes were counted, you started to lose, you tried to file this as emergency relief without filling out your paperwork properly. Thanks for wasting americas time."

I thought you had proof evidence was allowed inside a courtroom

Where is it?

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to mention this.
MOOTNESS
Moreover, even if the requested relief could issue against the Secretary of State, the Court
notes that the complaint and emergency motion were not filed until approximately 4:00 p.m. on
November 4, 2020—despite being announced to various media outlets much earlier in the day. By
the time this action was filed, the votes had largely been counted, and the counting is now
complete. Accordingly, and even assuming the requested relief were available against the
Secretary of State—and overlooking the problems with the factual and evidentiary record noted
above—the matter is now moot, as it is impossible to issue the requested relief. See Gleason v
Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 314; 917 NW2d 685 (2018)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 4, 2020 emergency motion for
declaratory judgment is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene is
DENIED as MOOT.


But here we go. So I took criminal justice in high school and they didnt explain ANYTHING about court documents or how to read them but some how my antifa super soldier brain can make sense of this.

Basically, they said "since you waited til 4pm, after a shitload of votes were counted, you started to lose, you tried to file this as emergency relief without filling out your paperwork properly. Thanks for wasting americas time."

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

States rights are only good when republicans like them. When states change the law to help more people vote in a pandemic, thats bad, according to republicans. More people voting = bad. Feds have no say in how states conduct their elections, its true. If they changed the law and made it legal, its legal.

I think they intentionally screwed it up to cast shade. Political parties have internal polling that is vastly more accurate than the stuff they let us see, so they knew Tromp was gonna get roflstomped. So all they could do was lie to undermine the next President(46).

The sorest of losers, sad!