Georgia Judge Brian Amero Dismisses Garland Favorito’s Case for Lack of Standing
Where Does the Georgia Election Case Go From Here?
Will the recent dismissal of the Garland Favorito case by Judge Brian Amero in Georgia state court be reversed by a higher court? Here are some thoughts:
Georgia Code § 9-6-24 - What Interest Required to Enforce Public Right
Where the question is one of public right and the object is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, no legal or special interest need be shown, but it shall be sufficient that a plaintiff is interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced.
IN OTHER WORDS, A PARTY WHO IS AN ELECTOR LIKE GARLAND FAVORITO, WHO IS SEEKING TO PROCURE THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PUBLIC DUTY, IS GRANTED A PRESUMPTION OF STANDING AB INITIO UNDER GEORGIA LAW
Perdue v. Lake, 647 SE 2d, GA Supreme Court 2007:
As a general rule, "standing must be determined at the time at which the plaintiff's complaint is filed" in order to place an actual case or controversy within the purview of the court. See, e.g., Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, 344 F.3d 1263, 1272 (11th Cir.2003); Ga. Power Corp. v. Allied Chem. Corp., 233 Ga. 558, 212 S.E.2d 628 (1975). In other words, the plaintiff must be able to show that he or she has been harmed at the time that the complaint is filed.
THIS LANGUAGE STATED BY THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT IN THE PERDUE CASE CITED ABOVE WOULD APPEAR TO PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A JUDGE BEING ABLE TO DISMISS A CASE THAT IS ALREADY SEVERAL MONTHS OLD, AFTER SUBSTANTIAL LITIGATION HAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN PLACE, BECAUSE STANDING IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE, NOT A POST EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION ISSUE
Morris v. Shah, 397 SE 2d 207 - Ga: Court of Appeals 1990:
"`A pretrial order limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel. The order, when entered, controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. OCGA § 9-11-16 (b). If a claim or issue is omitted from the order, it is waived.' Long v. Marion, 257 Ga. 431, 433 (360 SE2d 255) (1987)." King v. Thompkins, 186 Ga. App. 12, 13 (1) (366 SE2d 340) (1988). Accord John H. Smith, Inc. v. Teveit, 175 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) (a) (333 SE2d 856) (1985). THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BEG THE QUESTION: WAS THE STANDING ISSUE PLACED IN JUDGE AMERO’S ORIGINAL PRETRIAL ORDER? IF IT WAS NOT, THEN A PARTY WOULD BE APPEAR TO BE PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING IT UP AT A LATER STAGE IN THE CASE.
After reviewing the authorities set forth above, Garland Favorito would in all likelihood have some strong facts leaning in his favor, were he to raise those facts on appeal.
@Mark what’s the harm unless you have something to hide? It’s my forehead so why are you and your liberal buddies suddenly concerned with me hurting myself? The truth will set you free right?
There has always been great monetary potential, for those willing to 'portray themselves as a guardian of justice.
"Garland Favorito would in all likelihood have some strong facts leaning in his favor, were he to raise those facts on appeal".
When will Trump's loss of the 2020 election become obvious enough, for those who have nothing to show for their blind loyalty, except it be a severely swollen forehead?
Only the mentally challenged, would continue to beat their skull against such a proven wall.