If you don't post at least 5 more assertions of fact (with no supporting evidence obviously) while insulting everyone who isn't as wrong as you, in the next 15 minutes, I won't believe any more of your fact free assertions.
How's that mirror you're talking to?
Uh no, that is completely wrong. A dismissal with prejudice simply means the action cannot be refiled for a second go around at the trial court due to incurable defects in the pleadings such as failing to properly invoke subject matter jurisdiction. Trial courts erroneously dismiss cases with prejudice all the time and it would basically destroy the entire concept of appeal if such an error could not be reviewed and potentially reversed by a higher court.
You can raise on appeal a dismissal. Inherent in the appeal is also the consideration of the original issue(s) because if the dismissal is wrong so is the rejection of the initial pleading.
Maybe a dumb question, what does this have to do with the election?
I think it's related to that other philly mobster who was seeking immunities for arranging the manufacturing of ballots.
That guy in the mirror is an idiot and does everything backward. He's not bad looking though.
Put money on it faggot. $10 in BTC/ETH that it makes SCOTUS.
Would there be cross examinations for the affidavits? They're not called witness statements, but since they involve witness statements I don't know.
From what I understood what they’re doing currently is just appealing the fact it was dismissed with prejudice so they can appeal the full case. If you can appeal everything if you claim there’s constitutional rights at stake, we’d be seeing a fuckload of frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts every day that would end up at the Supreme Court.
Nothing at all.
A mob boss from a place notoriously corrupt and accused of riggibv elections getting jailed may lead to interesting things would be my inference from the post.
www.snopes.com
Large if reality.
That's why there's a huge backlog of cases in the appellate courts. This is also why there are attorneys that specialize solely in appellate filings/casework.
And it can be inferred to not be allowed if it's not explicitly allowed, especially when we talk about a prospect in the context of a phylum of law (election law) that has to be definitive because it defines the handling of a process.
You need to have an affidavit filed before you can give testimony at the stand, and that doesn't guarantee that you'll be called in to testify. If you are called in, however, that's when cross examination-- if any-- takes place.
THAT CRAZY BITCH WAS RIGHT? Lets wait for the evidence so we don't look like fools.
Nope fact checkers deboonked it.
No, George Soros Wasn't Arrested in Philadelphia for Election Interference
An indictment against Russian hackers was altered to support the false claim that the financier had been arrested for "election interference."
