The response affidavits in the link do not address any of those numbers. The only response I saw was a news conference where they didn't explain how (or if) they checked for those things. Basically the Georgia uniparty GOP put a lid on it. Lin Wood has every right to be furious with them.
When a case is dismissed for any one of the grounds upheld in Pearson, the Defendant has no need to respond to alleged but legally meaningless witnesses or claims.
The Court held a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of Plaintiff standing.
Pearson v Kemp, GAND 20-cv-4809, Doc 43, (3 Dec 2020) Motion to Dismiss
COME NOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., the DSCC, and the DCCC (collectively, the “Democratic Political Party Committees”), by and through their attorneys, and file this Proposed Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Doc 43-1, (3 Dec 2020) BRIEF in Support of Motion to Dismiss
The Court should dismiss this case on multiple grounds. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their claims, and further lack prudential standing to assert the Georgia General Assembly’s interests. Georgia law is clear that Plaintiffs’ claim for an election contest cannot be heard in federal court. And Plaintiffs’ extraordinary delay in bringing suit additionally means laches bars their claims. Any of these jurisdictional bars independently precludes this Court’s adjudication of Plaintiffs’ suit.
Pearson v Kemp, GAND 20-cv-4809, Doc 63, (5 Dec 2020) Motion to Dismiss
Defendants Governor Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and State Election Board members Rebecca N. Sullivan, David J. Worley, Matthew Mashburn, and Ahn Le (collectively, “State Defendants”) hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and various other threshold defenses stated in the accompanying brief in support. The State Defendants also move that the Court deny any injunctive, declaratory relief, and other relief sought in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
- - - - - - - - - -
Pearson v Kemp, GAND 20-cv-4809, Doc 63-1, (5 Dec 2020) BRIEF in Support of Motion to Dismiss
- - - - - - - - - -
Pearson v Kemp, GAND 20-cv-4809, Doc 74 (7 Dec 2020) MINUTE SHEET, CASE DISMISSED
PROCEEDINGCATEGORY: Motion Hearing (PI or TRO Hearing-Evidentiary);
MOTIONS RULED ON:
[43]Motion to Dismiss GRANTED
[63]Motion to Dismiss GRANTEDMINUTE TEXT: Defendants' motions are GRANTED. TRO is DISSOLVED.
Case is DISMISSED. Clerk shall close the case.
HEARING STATUS: Hearing Concluded