No more of an attorney than you are.
If it doesn't matter that you're not an attorney, then why does it matter if I'm an attorney? Why make such a masked accusation in the first place? Because it was an attempt to undermine and discredit me, as opposed to what I stated, interestingly a claim you've yet to even attempt to refute.
On the other hand, you claim it has no legal standing. You have no proof or legal experience to make such a claim.
As you've admitted, you have no proof or legal experienced to make such a claim to the contrary, that the plaintiff does have standing.
You only have your pessimistic opinion.
You only have your deluded HoPiUm in this specific case. It's good to be an optimist, but not at the expense of refusing to be a realist.
Since you're so interested in my credentials, I actually have far more expertise than most attorneys in matters of law. Unlike said attorneys, I actually have multiple advanced degrees in American History and Political Science, am a constitutional scholar and have taught college level classes on the subject. Most attorneys are nothing more than showmen who know nothing of law, but only how to play the game that is courtroom theatrics.
As I said before, this case is a dud, regardless of whether or not it raises some valid claims (such as federal gov's refusal to protect elections and ensuring that states have functional republican forms of government... all pointing to conspiracy and treason against the US) because the Court will claim Brunson does not having standing. And technically, he doesn't. Furthermore, his claims that the Congress and VP violated their "oath" by failing to adjudicate the Electoral appointment dispute, is moot because neither actually has the constitutional authority to do what he claims they are required to do. Doesn't matter what 3 USC says. Constitution trumps statute.
No more of an attorney than you are.
If it doesn't matter that you're not an attorney, then why does it matter if I'm an attorney? Why make such a masked accusation in the first place? Because it was an attempt to undermine and discredit me, as opposed to what I stated, interestingly a claim you've yet to even attempt to refute.
On the other hand, you claim it has no legal standing. You have no proof or legal experience to make such a claim.
As you've admitted, you have no proof or legal experienced to make such a claim to the contrary, that the plaintiff does have standing.
You only have your pessimistic opinion.
You only have your deluded HoPiUm in this specific case. It's good to be an optimist, but not at the expense of refusing to be a realist.
Since you're so interested in my credentials, I actually have far more expertise than most attorneys in matters of law. Unlike said attorneys, I actually have multiple advanced degrees in American History and Political Science, am a constitutional scholar and have taught college level classes on the subject. Most attorneys are nothing more than showmen who know nothing of law, but only how to play the game that is courtroom theatrics.
As I said before, this case is a dud, regardless of whether or not it raises some valid claims (such as federal gov's refusal to protect elections and ensuring that states have functional republican forms of government... all pointing to conspiracy and treason against the US) because the Court will claim Brunson does not having standing. And technically, he doesn't. Furthermore, his claims that the Congress and VP violated their "oath" by failing to adjudicate the Electoral appointment dispute, is moot because neither actually has the constitutional authority to do what he claims their are required to do. Doesn't matter what 3 USC says. Constitution trumps statute.