cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
jennys_mn
Veteran Advisor

Over 50 Lawsuits


Going all the way to the SCOTUS.   And nothing.

Yet, the BASS TARD’s cult is still here, “Look over there, I think I see something!!!!”

You’ve had plenty of time to prove something. Just the same old tactic of the BASS TARD in office - kick the can a little farther down the road - see if you can get someone to join in and say, “See.   SEE!!!!!”

There are gullible people - then there are those that support the BASS TARD about to leave office - one way or the other.   Trump is going down in disgrace.   And you cult members are helping him.   THANKS!!!!

The BASS TARD really is the sore LOSER we all knew he would be.   Are you sick of the whining yet?   

Jen

12 Replies
sam1wiseone
Senior Contributor

Re: Over 50 Lawsuits

Nearly all ruled on procedure no evidence accepted.

Massive levels of fraud.

rickgthf
Senior Advisor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

"No evidence accepted"?  You mean "no evidence presented".

sam1wiseone
Senior Contributor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

If the court doesn't take the case you don't get to the presenting evidence or doing discovery part.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

You don't produce evidence when the court refuses to hear the case.

JCCWIS
Senior Contributor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

Evidence HAS to be presented to court......... so court can decide IF the case should be heard !!!!!

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Over 50 Lawsuits

Yes. All of those affidavits and “well, that is what it looked like to me” personal accounts.

 

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

Nope.  But are you trying to say that all of these cases were rejected at filing? I thought I kept seeing rulings. Almost daily there for a while.

You need to essentially lay out your case in order for the court to decide if it’s worth the people’s time and dime.

As big and important as cases such as all of these having been touted as being one would think that somebody somewhere would have walked in with something. 

RJG640v8
Advisor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.


@bruce MN wrote:

Nope.  But are you trying to say that all of these cases were rejected at filing? I thought I kept seeing rulings. Almost daily there for a while.

You need to essentially lay out your case in order for the court to decide if it’s worth the people’s time and dime.

As big and important as cases such as all of these having been touted as being one would think that somebody somewhere would have walked in with something. 


** in the Court of Public Opinion , they made all sorts of loud boisterous claims , when pressed in A Court of Law they would not make the same claims. Quietly they said they had nothing.  Theatrics , all they have/had. 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: 59 to be exact although there's probably a few more we don't know about.

The cases have been denied a hearing based on a technicality, not the merits.