Federal judge utterly mis-applies the law in refusing to hear a case asking to investigate claim of vote fraud

Yesterday a *very* good attorney trying to get a court to investigate the massive vote fraud made her case before a federal judge in Atlanta.  Plaintiffs asked the court to allow outside experts to examine Dominion Systems voting machines in Georgia.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten Sr refused to grant the request.  But the reasons are...telling:

Batten based his ruling on two legal principles:  First he RULED that the plaintiffs had waited too long to file suit.  There is such a principle, called "laches," but I've never heard of it being used to bar a suit being filed just 34 days after a tort.  Usually it's invoked to keep people from suing five or ten years after an event.  

This lawsuit was heard 34 DAYS after the election.  Since it clearly takes some weeks to compile enough evidence to show election fraud, it's hard to imagine how laches would apply in this case.

In other words, the judge's ruling was bullshit.

Second: Batten RULED that the case should not have been filed in a federal court, but should properly have been in state court, since most of the evidence concerned claims of vote fraud in one state.  But I'd be amazed if at least the oral arguments didn't mention claims of vote fraud in the other battleground states.  And where there's a total diversity of the domicile of parties (and other considerations not relevant here), federal court is indeed the proper venue.

So again, Batten's RULING improperly applied the law.  That is, it was improper and possibly corrupt.

But of course that's what we've come to expect from judges.