Monday Town Hall with Ruggles

[Midnight Rambler]

Dude doesn't even understand the basic of law and jurisprudence. He says "The federal court in its order stated that it must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss....That is the key that just – pop – opened the lock. Now everything comes out. So what are those factual allegations in the complaint that was accepted as true because they dismissed it as a political question?"

But the court isn't actually ruling on the factual allegations and accepting them as true or not. What that actually means is that the court is hypothetically accepting them for the purpose of ruling on dismissal. In other words, even if everything he claims is true, is there justification for the case to go forward? And the answer is no. If the answer was yes, and the court did have jurisdiction, then there would be a trial on whether Sai's claims have merit or not.