I think you’re missing the point that a fraud doesn’t cease being a fraud... only because some arbitrary timeline is exceeded. The fraud... addressed in a civil suit... isn’t prevented from being heard by a court because some third party candidate for office has some other issue with the electoral process or the laws governing it ?
Sidney isn’t a candidate... so the expiry of a timeline that perhaps matters to some candidate... has no significance in relation to her status, or her claims ?
You’d have to ask separate questions... about the harms done that she’s addressing... and the remedies available ?
As a non-candidate... the electoral calendar doesn’t apply to Sidney Powell’s case...
Otherwise, I think you are in error in your expectation of the meaning... and the irreversibly... of having certified a result as “not fraudulent”, as when it is later proved that result was in fact fraudulent... perhaps also that the act of certification itself was a knowing fraud, and a continuation of a patter of fraud.
The error is in logic, versus law, as the assumption is that the acts undertaken are undertaken in good faith. If you can prove the acts were not done in good faith... you lose the benefit of the assumption.
The rest is that the Act 77 related issues are two-fold.
First, the “law” being applied, in part, in the conduct of the election was not ever constitutionally enabled by the legislature... so the election itself was not conducted in accordance with the law. That unlawful election that was held leads to separate questions: how can you certify as legitimate an election that was not conducted in accordance with the law ? And, why would you ?
The legislature answers, only... “we refuse to validate the result” in an election that is not able to be validated. Or, if they otherwise proactively assert the result is not legitimate, but fail in resolving the resulting conflict ? That still leaves an inability to act legitimately... other than by sending forward an unresolved controversy.
Second, other elements of the “election law” that was followed, in fact... suffer the parallel defect that the law, as passed by the legislature, was unconstitutional.
You end up with three categories of problems in the actions that were taken... 1.) actions that were taken that failed to comply with the law, 2.) actions that were taken that followed improperly constituted “law” (and thus, not the law), and 3.) actions that were taken that followed the law as passed, when the law as passed violated the constitution.
Then, throw into that mix... the element in motive... showing that the failures that occurred were not benign, but were deliberate... that the failings weren’t random, but were purposeful acts that KNOWINGLY failed in actions undertaken that intended to create the problems we now see... to knowingly deliver an wrongful and incorrect result. Compound that element in motive with coordination occurring between actors in multiple regions within a state, or between multiple states ?
Only then... given the full scope of the concern... can you properly address specific questions of venue, standing, harms done and laches, in proper context of the full range of Constitutional issues... from enabling unlawful elections... to coordination in a conspiracy to subvert the conduct of the elections... but also the Constitution ?
Why did they split the issues between Powell and Giuliani in the way they did ? I’m not sure we know the answer yet. But, in the case in Pennsylvania, I think they’ve largely won the point in law re Act 77, and are likely to prevail at the SCOTUS on that issue... and they’ve ALSO largely won the argument in the Legislature... and have won from them what they need.