Remember 'standing', and how this concept was used to ban election auditing and toss out evident of fraud, subpoenas, lawsuits complaints by voters in that region who had their legit vote annulled or sabotaged by fake ones? They HAD standing, they WERE directly impacted by vote fraud, yet they were still silenced.
What standing does this judge have? He doesn't work for Trump, he doesn't work for the bank, he is not a property assessor or insurance guy or loan expert. He is nothing at all remotely connected to the case, flat zero expertise in every single relevant area, and has no evidence except nonsense he conjured up in his own rotten mind.
When is the opinion of some utterly disconnected 3rd party a inflection point around which any legal case pivots? Never. It isn't even admissible, worth less even than testimony.
Remember 'standing', and how this concept was used to ban election auditing and toss out evident of fraud, subpoenas, lawsuits complaints by voters in that region who had their legit vote annulled or sabotaged by fake ones? They HAD standing, they WERE directly impacted by vote fraud, yet they were still silenced.
What standing does this judge have? He doesn't work for Trump, he doesn't work for the bank, he is not a property assessor or insurance guy or loan expert. He is nothing at all remotely connected to the case, flat zero expertise in every single relevant area, and has no evidence except nonsense he conjured up in his own rotten mind.
When is the opinion of some utterly disconnected 3rd party a inflection point around which any legal case pivots? Never. It isn't even admissible, worth less even than testimony.
Thank you. It's called fraud.