1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.