Total Landscape losing with “strained legal arguments”, free of factual proof.
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state,”
(CNN)
A US District Court judge Saturday dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump campaign trying to invalidate millions of Pennsylvania mail-in votes.
"Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated," US District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote Saturday.
Brann went on to admonish the Trump campaign lawyers for not presenting factual proof for seeking to invalidate so many votes in the key battleground state.
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
'Not how the Constitution works'
Heck of a law firm: undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility, LLP.
MORE from Judge Brann's opinion. Ouch.
Poor Rudy
Judge-speak for "You clearly think I'm stupid, but I'm not stupid."
Wow
oof
painful
"You receive no points and may God have mercy on your soul."
"Leave to amend is denied. 'Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.'"
Like Country and Western, passive and aggressive.