I do not think that one should confuse "not being optimistic about the SC taking the case" with "dooming." The important thing is that credible evidence of election fraud has been submitted under penalty of perjury for public scrutiny. The recognition of the evidence will have its effect on the public even if the court case is quashed.
Q said lawsuits work. I can attest that they do work, even if you do not "win" the case.
I recently completed a lawsuit against the State of California's income tax agency where I alleged they were running two embezzlement/racketeering schemes and third racketeering scheme. The State of CA never denied my allegations. They pretended as if I had made completely different arguments and claimed I had never submitted any evidence or legal codes. The judge went with the State's arguments and rejected all of my evidence on technicalities. Proof: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?cat=25
Even though I "lost," the case was worth the effort. The State never denied the allegations; they evaded them. In CA, failure to deny constitutes admission of truth. That gives a lot of traction to me and others to fight the State in other venues, or even to file another court case.
All of the evidence of the criminal schemes has been submitted under penalty of perjury. The State of CA never denied any of the evidence was valid; they kept insisting I didn't submit any!!!! The reality is that much of the evidence had been submitted by the State themselves and I simply highlighted the accounting fraud and then resubmitted it with the highlights.
While the judge may have chosen to ignore the evidence, it is still evidence that can be used by me other people/organizations in other capacities.
I have been putting a lot of pressure on legislators to intervene to stop the schemes. Before the court case, the legislators mocked me for thinking the agency was running a criminal scheme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUenmd6YHZE&list=PLAkSTXk9sO0GfbvJOQIEOesJ-3IODh9vJ&index=11.
Now that I send them court documents, they take me seriously.
I do not think that one should confuse "not being optimistic about the SC taking the case" with "dooming." The important thing is that credible evidence of election fraud has been submitted under penalty of perjury for public scrutiny. The recognition of the evidence will have its effect on the public even if the court case is quashed.
Q said lawsuits work. I can attest that they do work, even if you do not "win" the case.
I recently completed a lawsuit against the State of California's income tax agency where I alleged they were running two embezzlement/racketeering schemes and third racketeering scheme. The State of CA never denied my allegations. They pretended as if I had made completely different arguments and claimed I had never submitted any evidence or legal codes. The judge went with the State's arguments and rejected all of my evidence on technicalities. Proof: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?cat=25
Even though I "lost," the case was worth the effort. The State never denied the allegations, they evaded them. That gives a lot of traction to me and others to fight the State in other venues, or even to file another court case.
All of the evidence of the criminal schemes has been submitted under penalty of perjury. The State of CA never denied that it was valid. In fact, much of the evidence they had submitted themselves and I simply highlighted the accounting fraud and then resubmitted it with the highlights.
While the judge may have chosen to ignore the evidence, it is still evidence that can be used by me other people/organizations in other capacities.
I have been putting a lot of pressure on legislators to intervene to stop the schemes. Before the court case, the legislators mocked me for thinking the agency was running a criminal scheme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUenmd6YHZE&list=PLAkSTXk9sO0GfbvJOQIEOesJ-3IODh9vJ&index=11.
Now that I send them court documents, they take me seriously.