where do I say that an investigation in and on itself is a remedy given by courts? The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is.
> Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation. Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.
> The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is.
No, due process in civil litigation does not include other people investigating for the litigant. (Discovery from the other party, sure, but that’s not investigation.)
Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court.
> Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation.
No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases.
> Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.
Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”), which, if true, would meet the criteria of some legal wrong that can be remedied, are a threshold requirement for a case. This has always been the rule, its not some new problem that first emerged for Trump.
> No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases.
Election offence is criminal offence, afaik that's true for all (all english-speaking nations?) bodies that inherit the English model of the rule of law:
> Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court.
> Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”)
It's always been more than that, since the affidavits from witnesses have detailed particular locations, times, people, and the means used by those people, that the witnesses suspect to be instances of election fraud.
Consider there's a burglary, you suspect a person and you've obtained sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect's premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so. And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. That's exactly the scenario of the alleged election fraud by mail-in ballots, where votes were (allegedly) stolen by some suspected actors with some suspected means.
But those are prosecuted exclusively by public prosecutors, not by campaigns or candidates (even incumbent ones that oversee criminal prosecution authorities) in civil lawsuits in their role as candidates. Nor, even when they are investigated and prosecuted as crimes, do they need to file a case before pursuing search warrants as part of an investigation.
> Consider there’s a burglary, you suspect a person and you’ve obtained a sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect’s premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so.
You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you.
> And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses.
No, you can’t get the warrant at all, full stop. The police can get a warrant, if you give them information about the witnesses (which doesn’t even need sworn statements), and they think its worth following up on, and they present the witness statements (and any other evidence they gather if they investigate) in a warrant application to a judge and the judge agrees there is probable cause.
You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
> You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not. How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court? There are wtinesses that need to be heard during the official process, and there's warrants to be issued to bring additional evidence of a criminal offence, or perhaps there's no criminal offence, but it has to be established during the initial hearings conducted at the court.
> You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you.
sure, that's what I mean, the police and other authorities have to go there and bring (if it exists) an evidence to the court in addition to those that have been filed with the case. That's not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
> You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not.
They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist.
> How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court?
You don’t. If you think you have suffered a civil wrong, you gather the evidence, and file a civil lawsuit.
If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement authorities, who decide how to follow up, and may eventually file a criminal case.
You (as someone not acting as a public prosecutor) filing a court case has no bearing on the process for an criminal offense.
> That’s not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
To the extent its a criminal issue, its not the private litigants case at all.
To the extent its a civil issue, investigating and having evidence (of the actual wrong, not just evidence that someone else suspects that a wrong of some vague kind might have occurred) is, absolutely their job prior to submitting their case, without which they don’t have a case.
> They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist.
> If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement authorities, who decide how to follow up, and may eventually file a criminal case.
The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court, they were dismissed due to technicalities rather than hearings. And no one checked the paper trails (which is not enoguh to establish legitimacy, as the paper needs to have correct signatures and other credentials) in the swing states and reported back to the court under penalty of perjury. There was no final judgement on the matter that would establish whether there was wrongdoing and if it needs to be re-qualified as a criminal one, or whether those who signed affidavits may be committing wrongdoing themselves. There was only a final judgement regarding the prcedure of the filing and whether there's standing. The end result of it is a constitutional crisis, where institutions begin to lose their own "standing". Authorities lose authority if they do not demonstrate a just process, regardless of the actual technicalities that take place during case filings. Is there a clear legal path to follow to file the correct case? Yes there is. There's also a legal path to follow when it comes to elections, as well as there are articles of the Constitution that define whether states or state legislatures make and change election laws. Were they followed as thoroughly as you propose the other side to follow the procedures related to case filings? They weren't. The end result is today's events.
> The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court,
Yes, they were taken by the court. That the actual specific filings were, generally, found to be legally deficient when taken by the court is different than them not being taken.
> they were dismissed due to technicalities
“You haven’t stated an claim that, if taken as true, would involve a violation of the law” is not a technicality.
“You have not stated a claim to which, if taken as true, there would be a remedy under the law that a court could give” is not a technicality.
“You have not stated a claim in which, if taken as true, you are the legally harmed party, and thus entitled to seek a remedy” is not a technicality.
These are all fundamental, (and, at least in the federal courts, Constitutional), limits on the applicability of the judicial power.
“You have deliberately and unreasonably delayed this claim from when, if it is taken as true, you knew about it and could have acted on it, such that, even were it valid, it would no longer have a remedy that would not unduly impact the legal rights of others,” is not a technicality, its a rule of justice.
where do I say that an investigation in and on itself is a remedy given by courts? The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is.
> Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation. Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.