I just read the federal judge's order on the Michigan "Kraken" lawsuit.
Among the various points she makes:
* The evidence offered is sworn testimony of belief that something could
have happened. Belief is not evidence.
* A US Court has no authority to provide the relief requested by the
plaintiff: A court can't order a state to change it's election results.
* Under the 11th amendment of the US Constitution you can't sue a state
in a federal court.
* Most of the same claims have already been brought to state courts and
already dismissed.
* The point is moot because you say election tampering was immediately
apparent, but waited 3 weeks to file a suit --after results were already
certified.
Any one of those reasons was enough to dismiss. Even to a non-lawyer it
seems like this never had a chance. Why did they bother? Was it more
about putting on the show? Was it, "the client wanted it so we did it"?
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
