Now Reading
Laches, Lies, Standing, and Other Legal Complications

Laches, Lies, Standing, and Other Legal Complications

Laches, Lies, Standing, and other legal complications

As the Trump legal team and other entities concerned with free and fair elections have attempted to unravel the widespread fraud of the 2020 election, they have been thwarted by two stubborn and confusing legal obstacles – laches and standing.

While the mainstream media, who lie with every breath, would have the world believe that Trump has lost dozens of lawsuits, this is not the case. The truth is that cases have not been heard because judges are weak, cowardly, and politically biased. So rather than hearing the mountain of evidence that has been assembled, the judges have all played Pontius Pilate and washed their hands of their appointed duties. Reversing the 2020 election outcome would invoke the militant Left, those well-paid, black-clad umbrella-wielding militias that trade in death threats and smashed windows. 

What is Standing?

There are countless ways a spineless judge can wriggle free from hearing a case that might prove problematic. When the state of Texas launched its case against Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that convincingly charged the states with unconstitutional changes to their voting processes, the Supreme Court took the Standing route to dodge its responsibility. The case was very well crafted and supported by 20 other US states and over 200 elected Republican officials. It was considered a very credible challenge to the disastrously compromised voting in the affected states. The court argued that Texas had not suffered an injury and therefore had no standing in the outcomes delivered by the shambles of Nov 3. The evidence was never heard. Witnesses were not called and cross-examined. Technical experts were not called upon to testify. Data was not presented. The decision reeked of cowardice. It also signalled to Republicans and truth-seekers that the highest court in the land would be very reluctant to hear ANY case relating to the election outcome.

While Standing is a valid legal principle, the notion that one state is not injured by the cheating that takes place in another state is almost comical. Standing is normally invoked when an unrelated party attempts to muscle in on a contract to which they are not a signatory or another type of dispute that does not involve them. It is also invoked if a provable injury has not been sustained. If rampant cheating is occurring in other states, and unconstitutional voting affects the overall election outcome, Texas certainly had legal Standing.     

What is Laches?     

Many of the other lawsuits have not been heard due to another legal principle – Laches. The doctrine acknowledges that injury has occurred, but that it is now too late to seek remedy. The injured party should have spoken up sooner, in this case before the election while the affected states were making unconstitutional changes to their election process. 

So here is the scenario. You have a crazed neighbour who threatens to burn your house down. You attempt to sue the man, but because no injury has yet been sustained you have no Standing. Your neighbour burns your house down. Now when you attempt to sue your case is dismissed based on Laches, you should have acted earlier, before your property was reduced to a smouldering ruin. That is what the Trump legal team has been fighting. They have thousands of pages of evidence. Hundreds of credible witnesses who saw the election fraud with their own eyes. And yet they have consistently been denied a hearing.   

This has allowed the mainstream media to falsely assert that Trump’s desperate last-ditch gambits have been hosed out of court like yesterday’s trash. The court system is derelict in its duty. The media lies about it. Welcome to stalemate. Enjoy your banana republic. 

G G Novack – Political Pundit, Amateur Attorney  

Scroll To Top