• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Big D vs Twitter

Forums Unread posts
Woland said:
That'll work
Click to expand...

No, that's how they work. I'm an exception in that I win my cases first time with one shot, but that's only because of my brain being good enough to sit down and determine every eventuality before it happens, and outsmarting everyone including the judge. Normal people need to let the eventualities play out, by arguing cases, taking the L's, paying the court fees, then eventually they'll figure out what ethidence and legal argument they need to get the win.
 
Dantes using his maths to prove something is like the boobless calculator joke.
 
Woland said:
What's happening in the real world is, judges everywhere are looking at the filings, either laughing or getting angry, and lawyers are retracting or even resigning, because there's no proof of any voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Proving fraud? That isn't the god damn point or purpose. Read this filing https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ARP-v-Fontes-complaint.pdf

The outcome will be (1) judge has to contort his reasoning even harder to dismiss it (which they will learn form and go again in the next case), or (2) the county will have to redo the audit which might uncover fraud, or (3) the county will redo the audit and find no fraud if none exists, or they they get lucky, or (4) the jackpot the judge order the vote can't be certified.

Eventually if you keep litigating, you'll hit the jackpot
 
Woland said:
What's happening in the real world is, judges everywhere are looking at the filings, either laughing or getting angry, and lawyers are retracting or even resigning, because there's no proof of any voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Its all one big orange show to keep the «fans»on his side..

 
dantes said:
Proving fraud? That isn't the god damn point or purpose. Read this filing https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ARP-v-Fontes-complaint.pdf

The outcome will be (1) judge has to contort his reasoning even harder to dismiss it (which they will learn form and go again in the next case), or (2) the county will have to redo the audit which might uncover fraud, or (3) the county will redo the audit and find no fraud if none exists, or they they get lucky, or (4) the jackpot the judge order the vote can't be certified.

Eventually if you keep litigating, you'll hit the jackpot
Click to expand...

Dude, you've posted loads of these saying they were going to win and they've all lost.
 
Woland said:
Dude, you've posted loads of these saying they were going to win and they've all lost.
Click to expand...

No, I posted the link so you can keep track of the cases if you want, and I posted the link to the cases with affidavits because of the "no ethidence". I did not post a case and say look they will win this case. I told you at the start they're unlikely to win and I just wanted a court to adjudicate and decide the election one way or another, for the court to have that power is what I want.
 
dantes said:
No, I posted the link so you can keep track of the cases if you want, and I posted the link to the cases with affidavits because of the "no ethidence". I did not post a case and say look they will win this case. I told you at the start they're unlikely to win and I just wanted a court to adjudicate and decide the election one way or another, for the court to have that power is what I want.
Click to expand...

I think if trump had been significantly closer, it's clear that the republican establishment would have fallen in lock step and this would have been very messy. There are situations that would have been disastrous, for instance there existed the possibility of a draw. But even if instead we say were just down to a couple thousand votes somewhere, rather than hundreds and tens of thousands across multiple states, trump's actions would have thrown the us into chaos, there would have been millions that demonstrated and he would have gassed and perhaps even ordered the military to open fire on them as things escalated.

But now it's just funny. Oh trump, that rascal. Look at him undermining democracy again. What a character, can you believe this guy?

Meanwhile 180,000 people caught coronavirus yesterday. My state is starting up the field hospital it didn't have to use in spring. It's all very reassuring.
 
Last edited:
Farkmaster said:
I think if trump had been significantly closer, it's clear that the republican establishment would have fallen in lock step and this would have been very messy. There are situations that would have been disastrous, for instance there existed the possibility of a draw. But even if instead we say were just down to a couple thousand votes somewhere, rather than hundreds and tens of thousands across multiple states, trump's actions would have thrown the us into chaos, there would have been millions that demonstrated and he would have gassed and perhaps even ordered the military to open fire on them.

But now it's just funny. Oh trump, that rascal. Look at him undermining democracy again. What a character.
Click to expand...

The margin of victory isn't really that important. If you block the votes from a county being certified based on procedural claims, then the whole margin for that county is gone. If you prove that an uncertain number of ballots in that county are illegal, and it is too late to go fishing to pull them out, then again the entire margin is gone. The litigation isn't about proving 3056 ballots were dead people, and chipping away at the total like that. It looks like they started it that way when the states were much tighter, but needs must and the win in the Pennsylvania case is leading them down the procedural law path. It doesn't matter how many losses they take down that path, if they reach the end disaster will follow. I think he'll manage to block at least one of the states from certifying or get enough votes flipped to change the result. Then no empty words of "unity" and let's "come together" is going to avoid the violent clashes that will follow.
 
https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/bally-v-whitmer/

If you look at the motion to expedite in this case, they are asking the court to allow them access to the raw voting data so their mathematicians and analysts can have a go at it, then go to trial and get it sorted before the certification deadline comes around. The filing looks like a rushed together pile of shit, but maybe my standards are just very high and the judge will give them some leeway due to how urgent it is.

I don't know what the judge will do. Just outright telling the voters to get stuffed, you're not allowed to even check that your vote was free and fair, because fuck your constitutional right? It's not easy to say that. If he does, so what, another lawsuit will be filed in another court the following day. It's far from over.
 
From that motion, yes it's hilariously desperate but also it's not asking for a lot, it's a reasonable thing to ask and if it's granted then dominion voting systems better start shifting their assets out of the jurisdiction:

[article]
Voters have persons with such expertise and data-analysis software already in place who have begun preliminary analysis of available data to which final data, not currently publicly available such as the official poll list, will be added and reports generated. However, much of the information necessary for the expert report is not publicly available and is in the hands of Defendants or other government agencies. Expedited discovery is necessary to obtain this information. Voters intend to use expedited discovery to obtain the necessary information which is not publicly available for the expert reports.
[/article]
 
dantes said:
From that motion, yes it's hilariously desperate but also it's not asking for a lot, it's a reasonable thing to ask and if it's granted then dominion voting systems better start shifting their assets out of the jurisdiction:

[article]
Voters have persons with such expertise and data-analysis software already in place who have begun preliminary analysis of available data to which final data, not currently publicly available such as the official poll list, will be added and reports generated. However, much of the information necessary for the expert report is not publicly available and is in the hands of Defendants or other government agencies. Expedited discovery is necessary to obtain this information. Voters intend to use expedited discovery to obtain the necessary information which is not publicly available for the expert reports.
[/article]
Click to expand...

Is that what's called fishing? And usually gets thrown out immediately?
 
Woland said:
Is that what's called fishing? And usually gets thrown out immediately?
Click to expand...

No not exactly. When you issue proceedings you don't need ANY evidence at all, you just need to make a legally arguable claim, then it goes to discovery and you fish for the evidence. The onus is on the other party to provide evidence for why the claim should be thrown out.

In the lawsuits we had last week, a lot of them were not just starting a case but asking for some sort of order to be made up front. Injunctions to stop counting, reject the ballots, etc. So that's when you need to have solid evidence up front to obtain such an order. Those cases have mostly been thrown out up to now. Because the evidence isn't solid enough to grant those extreme orders. Doesn't mean there is any harm in trying.

In the types of lawsuit like the one I just linked, based on procedural defects, it doesn't take much evidence to prove a procedure was or wasn't followed. It's just a fact one way or another. Also the order they are asking for here is not as extreme as cancel the whole election. They are asking to expedite the discovery process. It's less likely for this to be thrown out.
 
dantes said:
Has Mr. Elias ever been in a court room? Ever served in a forward area? Ever argued before a judge and asked a judge to rule in his favour?
Click to expand...
Probably not .. but that doesn't seem to be impeding the judges making decisions. 19-1 and counting.
 
dantes said:
The case they lost where those affidavits were filed was in a local court, brought by a private citizen (funded by Trump). The affidavits refer to the voting centres in city, which is why the judge in that case dismissed it as irrelevant as they were not the place this guy turned up to watch/vote. So he lost the case because it was his word of what he though he saw in that polling station, against the word of several officials working there.
Click to expand...
Are we going to hear a Dantes excuse for every case lost? You are going to be very busy over the next week ... I sense carpal tunnel coming on. Careful !
 
Woland said:
So Rosco doesn't know what he's on about then? Interesting
Click to expand...

No not exactly. The evidence supporting the order were affidavits of witnesses who saw the fraud occurring. Hence there is evidence of fraud. Hence there is evidence to ask for discovery and go to trial. There is not enough evidence for the court to cancel an election over that same day there and then.
 
dantes said:
No not exactly. The evidence supporting the order were affidavits of witnesses who saw the fraud occurring. Hence there is evidence of fraud. Hence there is evidence to ask for discovery and go to trial. There is not enough evidence for the court to cancel an election over that same day there and then.
Click to expand...

Witnesses who claim they saw fraud occurring.
Important difference. Then the legal process can begin to uncover it all.
 
tomasjj said:
Witnesses who claim they saw fraud occurring.
Important difference. Then the legal process can begin to uncover it all.
Click to expand...

No apparently affidavits are solid evidence. Which is odd, as twenty cases have been tossed out already, many of them based on the affidavits being a load of bullshit.
 
I see a 'million' people have taken part in this MAGA march

d9513d4f30bd28a68701209bdaee709e.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Man Utd (H) - Sun 16:30
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
316
Views
5K
My_Blood_Bleeds_Red
My_Blood_Bleeds_Red
Woland
    • Like
    • Haha
    • Love
Things we were very wrong about in 2024
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
2K
Judge Jules
Judge Jules
Brizzle
    • Like
Pre Match Pre Match - Everton (A) - Sat 12:30
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
160
Views
4K
CueEye
CueEye
Whaddapie
    • Like
    • Happy
Happy Everything, lads...
2
Replies
32
Views
838
binomial
binomial
moron
    • Like
Finding the Next VVD.....
2
Replies
52
Views
782
Squiggles
Squiggles
Back
Top Bottom