Here is the evidence

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:16 pm

More quotes from Judge Bibas taken directly from his official statement:

"It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again.

Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters."
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:21 pm

Oh and this gem here, Rudy specifically stated in oral argument that they don't "plead fraud":

"To start, note what it does not allege: fraud. Indeed, in oral argument before the District Court, Campaign lawyer Rudolph Giuliani conceded that the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20 (Nov. 17, 2020)."
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:30 pm

And more quotes directly from Judge Bibas official statement linked above. I mean this is cut and dry guys. You challenge me to bring proof to the table and in less than an hour I bring this. I challenge all of you to bring something, anything to the table that is as clear as this ruling, made by a judge appointed by Trump. Not internet BS, but real official evidence including source.

"The Campaign has no strong likelihood of success on the merits. As discussed, the Campaign cannot win this lawsuit. It conceded that it is not alleging election fraud. It has already raised and lost most of these state-law issues, and it cannot relitigate them here. It cites no federal authority regulating poll watchers or notice and cure. It alleges no specific discrimination. And it does not contest that it lacks standing under the Elections and Electors Clauses. These claims cannot succeed."

"The Campaign faces no irreparable harm. The Campaign has not shown that denying relief will injure it. “Upon information and belief,” it suspects that many of the 1.5 million mail-in ballots in the challenged counties were improperly counted. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶168, 194, 223, 253. But it challenges no specific ballots. The Campaign alleges only that at most three specific voters cast ballots that were not counted. Id. ¶237 (one voter); First Am. Compl. ¶¶15–16, 112 (three). And it never alleges that anyone except a lawful voter cast a vote. Of the seven counties whose notice-and-cure procedures are challenged, four (including the three most populous) rep- resented that they gave notice to only about 6,500 voters who sent in defective ballot pack- ages. Allegheny Cty. Opp. Mot. TRO & PI 7–8, D. Ct. Dkt. No. 193 (Nov. 20, 2020). The Campaign never disputed these numbers or alleged its own. Even if 10,000 voters got no- tice and cured their defective ballots, and every single one then voted for Biden, that is less than an eighth of the margin of victory.
Without more facts, we will not extrapolate from these modest numbers to postulate that the number of affected ballots comes close to the certified margin of victory of 80,555 votes. Denying relief will not move the needle."

"And the Campaign’s charges are selective. Though Pennsylvanians cast 2.6 million mail-in ballots, the Campaign challenges 1.5 million of them. It cherry-picks votes cast in “Democratic-heavy counties” but not “those in Republican-heavy counties.” Second Am. Compl. ¶8. Without compelling evidence of massive fraud, not even alleged here, we can hardly grant such lopsided relief."
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:39 pm

pmward wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:12 pm
I see not any real evidence of fraud.
With any luck, you'll never be on a jury. You've made up your mind before the evidence has even been presented.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:43 pm

Maddy wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:39 pm
Do you simply not get it, or are you intent upon maintaining your position no matter what the truth is?
That's like asking are you a victim of TDS, or just out trolling?
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:45 pm

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:07 pm
Maddy wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:04 pm
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:58 pm
Internet Forum Summary Judgement only takes a headline snippet and a few minutes of time. I bet you even type your briefs up on a typewriter, you're so 20th century.
I don't have a clue what you mean by "Internet Forum Summary Judgment." However, if what you're saying is that a motion for summary judgment can be prepared in a few minutes, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
It's a summary judgement for purposes of use in the "court" of internet forums. O0
Don't worry Tom. You explained internet forum summary judgements and the process well, maddys just worked up ;D
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:47 pm

Maddy wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:39 pm
pmward wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:12 pm
I see not any real evidence of fraud.
With any luck, you'll never be on a jury. You've made up your mind before the evidence has even been presented.
You forgot that evidence only exists if you admit it does. It's like a tree falling in the woods. It only makes a sound if someone is there to here it.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:49 pm

Maddy wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:39 pm
pmward wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:12 pm
I see not any real evidence of fraud.
With any luck, you'll never be on a jury. You've made up your mind before the evidence has even been presented.
Look at everything I just linked above. Is this not evidence? This is an official ruling out of PA. Moreover, Rudy specially started that the campaign "doesn't plead fraud."

"To start, note what it does not allege: fraud. Indeed, in oral argument before the District Court, Campaign lawyer Rudolph Giuliani conceded that the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20 (Nov. 17, 2020)."

There's no way you can tell me that this legal ruling is not evidence. Not only does he state there is no proof, he says there are no allegations. In the opening paragraph "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.". He says that the campaign "never alleges that anyone except a lawful voter cast a vote". He says "The Campaign’s claims have no merit." I mean seriously, go read the whole judgment. Trump appointed this judge, and he turned around and just shredded Giuliani's case to pieces!
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:26 am

pmward wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:49 pm

Look at everything I just linked above. Is this not evidence?
No, it's not. You want to take a ruling on a preliminary procedural matter (entitlement to an injunction and amendment of complaint) and somehow conflate this with a decision on the merits.
This is an official ruling out of PA.

It's an official ruling on an isolated procedural issue.
Moreover, Rudy specially started that the campaign "doesn't plead fraud."
Do you understand anything about pleading? Why would you plead fraud, with its heightened (and oftentimes insurmountable) burden of proof, when that isn't necessary?
There's no way you can tell me that this legal ruling is not evidence.
You're making no sense. Legal rulings are never evidence. And they relate directly, and solely, to the specific issue presented to the court. You don't seem to care what the issue was; you're going to spin this as a decision on the merits regardless of the truth of the matter.
Not only does he state there is no proof, he says there are no allegations. In the opening paragraph "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The issue was whether the Campaign was entitled to amend its complaint to MAKE additional allegations. So what you have the court saying is that, No, we're not going to allow you to amend the complaint, and because the allegations define the scope of the evidence that can be presented, you're not going to be allowed to present that evidence.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the difference between the standard of "proof" that applies to preliminary injunctions and the standard of proof at trial? One requires a "best guess" as to how things will turn out; the other requires a full and fair presentation of the evidence following development of the case through discovery and otherwise.

This is getting so utterly stupid that I can't stand it. It's like arguing with an idiot on the internet who insists that you can go into court and make a special hand signal to the judge based upon UCC 2-207 (signifying that your "straw person" refuses the court's jurisdiction) and the prosecutor will nod knowingly and dismiss your case. They'll never actually read UCC 2-207 because the fantasy of what it means is far too enticing. If all else fails, they'll simply conclude that you're part of the cover-up.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:11 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:26 am
pmward wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:49 pm

Look at everything I just linked above. Is this not evidence?
No, it's not. You want to take a ruling on a preliminary procedural matter (entitlement to an injunction and amendment of complaint) and somehow conflate this with a decision on the merits.
This is an official ruling out of PA.

It's an official ruling on an isolated procedural issue.
Moreover, Rudy specially started that the campaign "doesn't plead fraud."
Do you understand anything about pleading? Why would you plead fraud, with its heightened (and oftentimes insurmountable) burden of proof, when that isn't necessary?
There's no way you can tell me that this legal ruling is not evidence.
You're making no sense. Legal rulings are never evidence. And they relate directly, and solely, to the specific issue presented to the court. You don't seem to care what the issue was; you're going to spin this as a decision on the merits regardless of the truth of the matter.
Not only does he state there is no proof, he says there are no allegations. In the opening paragraph "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The issue was whether the Campaign was entitled to amend its complaint to MAKE additional allegations. So what you have the court saying is that, No, we're not going to allow you to amend the complaint, and because the allegations define the scope of the evidence that can be presented, you're not going to be allowed to present that evidence.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the difference between the standard of "proof" that applies to preliminary injunctions and the standard of proof at trial? One requires a "best guess" as to how things will turn out; the other requires a full and fair presentation of the evidence following development of the case through discovery and otherwise.

This is getting so utterly stupid that I can't stand it. It's like arguing with an idiot on the internet who insists that you can go into court and make a special hand signal to the judge based upon UCC 2-207 (signifying that your "straw person" refuses the court's jurisdiction) and the prosecutor will nod knowingly and dismiss your case. They'll never actually read UCC 2-207 because the fantasy of what it means is far too enticing. If all else fails, they'll simply conclude that you're part of the cover-up.
You clearly did not read the document. In the document the judge specifically states that the campaign was asking to overturn 1.5 million votes. And yes, a judges ruling and statement that there is "no evidence" is a credible source, unlike the internet BS that everyone else here has brought to the table, my source holds much more weight. Also, past judge rulings are admissible in court, and sourced all the time in legal cases.

Now, I wish you would do your part and actually bring some real proof from a credible source to the table. You're probably the only person here that might actually be able to do so. And if you do so, I will give you more respect than you've given me, i.e. I will actually set my biases aside to read, consider, and meet you in the middle for a discussion. In all honesty if the election was a fraud I would want to know, and I would want justice served accordingly. But I have yet to see any compelling evidence to this end from a credible source.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:23 am

Let's make it simple. Here's what the court stated at the outset of its opinion:

"This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not."

This prefatory remark tells you, point blank, that the court's ruling is limited to that narrow, isolated issue. You seem to want to create something more of the court's opinion than the court itself intended.

You keep challenging me to come up with "evidence." How the hell would I know what evidence of fraud exists? Last time I checked, they weren't allowing me access to the ballots, or the software, or the videos, or the witnesses. I'm withholding judgment until the evidence is presented, following full and fair discovery, in a court of law. You, to the contrary, have already made up your mind--and not only that, you've decided what the evidence does and does not prove before the evidence has even been presented.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:36 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:23 am
Let's make it simple. Here's what the court stated at the outset of its opinion:

"This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not."

This prefatory remark tells you, point blank, that the court's ruling is limited to that narrow, isolated issue. You seem to want to create something more of the court's opinion than the court itself intended.

You keep challenging me to come up with "evidence." How the hell would I know what evidence of fraud exists? Last time I checked, they weren't allowing me access to the ballots, or the software, or the videos, or the witnesses. I'm withholding judgment until the evidence is presented, following full and fair discovery, in a court of law. You, to the contrary, have already made up your mind--and not only that, you've decided what the evidence does and does not prove before the evidence has even been presented.
If you read the full document he went into great detail on more than just that one point. He did discuss that point, and the case as a whole, including all presented allegations and evidence. I still don't think you've read beyond the first few paragraphs. You would see my point if you read the whole thing.

And if you really want to know what my intent here is, it's to combat the fantasy land tinfoil hat internet BS that Tech and SomeDude keep trying to pass off as real "evidence". I have yet to see them submit anything from a credible source. So you may interpret my push back against them as if my mind is 100% made up. On the contrary, I've said multiple times here that my opinion will change if real evidence emerges. My opinion is based on the state of the evidence right now. My mind is far from made up. But if you want to be so stringent why are you not hammering Tech and SomeDude about their non-credible sources? To me, that speaks to the fact that you have your own mind made up already, even after admitting there is no evidence. So to me it seems like you're a hypocrite.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am

I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Last edited by Maddy on Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:29 am, edited 4 times in total.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
You won't be able to Maddy but i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
Simonjester wrote:
DITTO..
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:38 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
While I disagree that this commentary should be thrown out and ignored I can accept the difference of opinion, meet you in the middle, and say I am willing to be patient and wait for further evidence. Can we at least agree that the non-credible conspiracy theory websites and opinions Tech and SomeDude post should be thrown out and ignored? That they should also wait until there is evidence to pass judgment? I think me and everyone on my "side" would be willing to be patient and let the process work, if the other side would also be willing to do the same. But we cannot just sit back and let them keep posting non-credible info as if it is truth.
Last edited by pmward on Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Libertarian666 » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Thank you for wading through the muck on this one.

Of course you won't convince the troll, but (equally of course) that's not the purpose of arguing with trolls. It's so that normal people will be able to see that they have no valid arguments.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:42 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Thank you for wading through the muck on this one.

Of course you won't convince the troll, but (equally of course) that's not the purpose of arguing with trolls. It's so that normal people will be able to see that they have no valid arguments.
Where exactly are your "valid arguments"? I have not seen you post a single credible source or argument yet.
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am

Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, for so many people to be so aggressive in their positions on legal issues when they CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:09 am

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am
ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
It was actually aimed at the majority of posters (on both sides of the argument). It was not intended to single anyone out (in fact, I edited it a couple seconds later to make that more clear).

It really was a great book though :)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:15 am

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:09 am
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am
ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
It was actually aimed at the majority of posters (on both sides of the argument). It was not intended to single anyone out (in fact, I edited it a couple seconds later to make that more clear).

It really was a great book though :)
I agree. Excellent, somewhat groundbreaking book.

And, thanks for clarifying. I had thought for certain it was aimed at one particular individual. Glad I refrained from naming the person. I trust what your true intents were.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by sophie » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am

Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
Simonjester wrote: Reporting the news ^-^
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11496&start=12#p213901
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am
Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:19 pm

pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am
sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am
Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
When talking about "facts" on the internet, here is what I have been seeing (this is not an attack on anyone, just being honest):

1. Some people like to cite websites that are providing summaries for the lawsuits.
2. Some people like to cite the lawsuits directly without a solid understanding of legal proceedings.

I am not a legal expert by any means. However, I have been around court rooms enough to know that it is a PROCESS. The PROCESS takes time. There is a low threshold of proof in the beginning for a case to survive. Over time, that threshold becomes higher and higher. This is normal as the Discovery process plays out and either strengthens or weakens the original allegations. But again, Discovery will involve the claims of that specific lawsuit and that lawsuit alone.

Furthermore, each case is likely unique. Even within each case, how it is handled will vary (for example, an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction will allow certain "objections" to be "sustained" that would not normally occur). Evidence will be permitted that may other wise not be allowed. This is for the sake of expediting the case to prevent further harm to the alleged victim. However, the judgement would be TEMPORARY for a reason. This is because the normal legal PROCESS still needs to be used... which takes TIME. Truth takes time.

I believe that is what Maddy was trying to get across previously.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:27 pm

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:19 pm

pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am

Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am

I don't know how to get through to you.


i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!

DITTO..


Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.


*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?


When talking about "facts" on the internet, here is what I have been seeing (this is not an attack on anyone, just being honest):

1. Some people like to cite websites that are providing summaries for the lawsuits.
2. Some people like to cite the lawsuits directly without a solid understanding of legal proceedings.

I am not a legal expert by any means. However, I have been around court rooms enough to know that it is a PROCESS. The PROCESS takes time. There is a low threshold of proof in the beginning for a case to survive. Over time, that threshold becomes higher and higher. This is normal as the Discovery process plays out and either strengthens or weakens the original allegations. But again, Discovery will involve the claims of that specific lawsuit and that lawsuit alone.

Furthermore, each case is likely unique. Even within each case, how it is handled will vary (for example, an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction will allow certain "objections" to be "sustained" that would not normally occur). Evidence will be permitted that may other wise not be allowed. This is for the sake of expediting the case to prevent further harm to the alleged victim. However, the judgement would be TEMPORARY for a reason. This is because the normal legal PROCESS still needs to be used... which takes TIME. Truth takes time.

I believe that is what Maddy was trying to get across previously.


Thanks for laying it all out in a teaching manner!

Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply