In this particular case I think it is appropriate to hit the lawyers  with restitution.  A 160 billion dollar suit representing 160 million American registered voters by filing in a single State deserves to be held accountable.

"Plaintiffs’ lack of standing to bring suit under Article III of the Constitution. Also absent from the proposed Amended Complaint was any effort to address the conspicuous personal jurisdictional problems raised by suing, in federal court in Colorado, state government officials from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Michigan, for acts taken in connection with their official duties in those respective states."

 Here's an example of one of those incriminating affidavits we heard about:

It is obvious our federal election has been tampered with and compromised by Dominion Voting Systems Inc, along with the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, his wife Priscilla Chan, and many others acting as governors/secretaries of state across the country. Every day, we, as a country, find out more information about this corrupt system, Dominion, and the government officials who allow it.


 That's the whole thing.   What the hell is that statement supposed to do?

 Another:

After much research and contemplation, it has come to my attention that the 2020 general election, and probably many more, have been compromised by a number of persons, including a corporation in the United States called Dominion Voting Machines, Inc., and others, such as, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan; and other individuals acting as governors and secretaries of state, including, Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, and Gretchen Whitmer and Jocelyn Bensen from Michigan.

 What lawyer thinks that statement, where this individual has no evidence, is applicable in court?  


 Case in full:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts....

"You mean, finger-pointing isn't evidence?..."


 It's all the uninformed need, because a lot of people think who they like is right and "right" eliminates a need for evidence - but I would expect legal professionals to know better.  Just look here on this forum regarding the "sworn affidavit" subject.  People act like an affidavit means that what is stated in it is factual, or verified when it is nothing more than a verified document.  Lies can be verified documents too.

 I by no means am against investigating voter fraud.  I posted the input values that are outliers for many election numbers here, nobody looked at them, and now they act like I think everything was legitimate.  

 However garbage like this lawsuit does nothing more than put endorsement leverage into the pockets of these lawyers (this means money) all while they muddy the pool of legitimate investigation with "sworn affidavits" that are nothing more than opinion.

 If I had an opinion that you broke into my house should you be held accountable by my sworn affidavit alone?  My research says you broke into my home.  You wouldn't ask for me to provide that research as part of your defense?

"you broke into my house should you be held accountable by my sworn affidavit alone?"


 "You tell us !"
 
 No.  A sworn affidavit alone is not sufficient evidence.

 
 Now you add in things like "You, or the Police, find the person matching your description,"

 Would that, by your assessment be a sworn affidavit alone?


 The defense would clearly ask for me to provide proof I even had $100.  A sworn affidavit that I had $100 would not be evidence and only the word evidence with the exemption of all other words.

 So in your example - no my sworn affidavit alone would not be sufficient to charge someone with that particular crime.