Read page 23 - 27 of that same judgement. It goes into great detail on the evidence presented, and why it utterly fails to meet the standard required for fraud. Why did you think they hadn't been able to present the evidence?
Because the evidence presented failed to plausibly establish the allegations, and hence had no reasonable chance of succeeding at discovery, as per the judgement.
That's on the lawyers making the case, if the evidence is overwhelming they should have no problem filing something to convince a judge to take it further, instead they keep filing procedurally invalid claims based on largely inadmissable hearsay and conjecture. They've been given a fair shot at making a case, and the judges have been utterly unconvinced by the arguments and the evidence to back them up.
At some point youve got to question what the lawyers are up to, because they must know that these cases are all DOA, yet they file them anyway. Almost like it's all just for show, and somebody's taking donations for the tickets...
Why would witness testimony help? It would have the same fundamental hearsay inadmissability as the affidavits in that none of the claims of the witnesses are substantiated by physical evidence.
If I signed an affadavit saying you murdered someone, yet there was no name of the victim and no body and no other physical evidence of my allegation, do you think the judge should still allow a full hearing and put you on trial for murder? Or what about the multiple signed affadavits from women claiming Trump raped them, do you think a judge should allow full discovery and put Trump on trial for rape based solely on those claims?
That's not how courts have ever worked, you need specific evidence, especially to allege fraud, not the 'he said she said' allegations presented in this case. Why is it that Trump supporters want to throw out centuries of precedent and evidential rules and procedures because Trump can't seem to present evidence correctly? Especially as the evidence for fraud is apparently overwhelming, why aren't they submitting some of this overwhelming evidence rather than the vague inadmissable hearsay that they seem to be submitting instead?
Read page 23 - 27 of that same judgement. It goes into great detail on the evidence presented, and why it utterly fails to meet the standard required for fraud. Why did you think they hadn't been able to present the evidence?
Because the evidence presented failed to plausibly establish the allegations, and hence had no reasonable chance of succeeding at discovery, as per the judgement.
That's on the lawyers making the case, if the evidence is overwhelming they should have no problem filing something to convince a judge to take it further, instead they keep filing procedurally invalid claims based on largely inadmissable hearsay and conjecture. They've been given a fair shot at making a case, and the judges have been utterly unconvinced by the arguments and the evidence to back them up.
At some point youve got to question what the lawyers are up to, because they must know that these cases are all DOA, yet they file them anyway. Almost like it's all just for show, and somebody's taking donations for the tickets...
Why would witness testimony help? It would have the same fundamental hearsay inadmissability as the affidavits in that none of the claims of the witnesses are substantiated by physical evidence.
If I signed an affadavit saying you murdered someone, yet there was no name of the victim and no body and no other physical evidence of my allegation, do you think the judge should still allow a full hearing and put you on trial for murder? Or what about the multiple signed affadavits from women claiming Trump raped them, do you think a judge should allow full discovery and put Trump on trial for rape based solely on those claims?
That's not how courts have ever worked, you need specific evidence, especially to allege fraud, not the 'he said she said' allegations presented in this case. Why is it that Trump supporters want to throw out centuries of precedent and evidential rules and procedures because Trump can't seem to present evidence correctly? Especially as the evidence for fraud is apparently overwhelming, why aren't they submitting some of this overwhelming evidence rather than the vague inadmissable hearsay that they seem to be submitting instead?