Anonymous ID: 3b0869 Nov. 26, 2020, 9:05 a.m. No.11796311   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6324 >>6326 >>6348 >>6501 >>6660 >>6808 >>6851 >>6859 >>6924

>>11795437 /lb

 

LegalEagle, here. Worked on high profile cases, including election law cases reported on this board. The length and detail in the complaint is not unusual because Powell is pleading fraud as part of her bases for the state law election claims. Allegations of fraud must nave plead with particularity. Typos, especially formatting issues in Michigan complaint show a rush and level of unprofessionalism not typically associated with Powell’s work. Complaint has other significant issues and will likely not survive a motion to dismiss for standing and federalism issues. May survive on count I and II. Powell needed to dedicate much more discussion to the standing of her plaintiffs, especially with regard to the electors clause claim. Moreover, the state law claims will very likely be dismissed barring a change in the law by the Supreme Court because a federal court does not have the power to force a state law official to follow the dictates of a state law, as such. The equal protection claims are also difficult due to the lack of identified protected class, or any class at all. Due Process requires a clearing a higher standard. Anon has advocated that election lawyers consider bringing claims under the 9th Amendment and an inherent right of the people to a free and fair election, which at minimum must include security and transparency of vote. Force Federal courts to state no such right exists. Equal Protection is not designed for challenges based on fraud. Due Process provides a difficult framework.