Yes they were. This is from the judges ruling.
“ “In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote in a 37-page opinion. “This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.”
“That has not happened,” Brann emphasized. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
All this talk to the media of mountains of evidence yet they are not presenting it in court? i know a scam when I see one and this is a scam.
You’re young. It isn’t a scam. It’s a political overthrow being executed no matter what the facts are. Grow up.
The procedure for obtaining injunctive relief is:
1. TRO - generally, emergency relief without hearing (high standard to meet) and is severely time-limited.
2. Preliminary Injunction - this is used when something threatens the relief sought and to hold the “something” in abeyance and preserve the status quo until the case is finished. Alot of the time, in actions to prevent a govt. official (or the “state”) from doing something, it is required that you, at least, file for injunctive relief to preserve any other legal remedies that may be available to you. When filed, there is a preliminary hearing to argue over the requirements for injunctive relief and to set the date for a full blown evidentiary hearing if those requirements are met. This requires a subjective discretionary call on the part of the Judge. This is the hurdle that has not been cleared yet - there has never been an evidentiary hearing allowed in the case...yet.
3. Permanent Injunction - Issued after trial and is part of case resolution permanently requiring something or preventing something from happening.
i know a scam when I see one and this is a scam
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So what’s the endgame to their scam, troll?
These are high level lawyers whose reputation is critical to their future. You sound the strictly headline reading sap the left counts on to advance their evil agenda.
The fundraising emails are coming in...
Have to find a judge sympathetic to the argument enough to allow them to present their case in court.