quote:

Originally posted by 12131:...
PA commie AG represents PA as defendant in the lawsuit.
PA GOP state house members join TX as the plaintiffs.

I am my own grandpa.

"TEMPROARY RESTRAINING ORDER"? Have they no proofreaders? No use of Spellcheck?

flashguy

Seeing as YouTube and others are actively trying to remove all videos related to the election fraud is anyone able to start locally archiving the videos

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

I am my own grandpa.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
Wow, Cox is a guy living up to his name in Utah.

That piece of shit. Seems to me Reyes should be the one in the governor's mansion.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

I am my own grandpa.

I did do the nasty in the pasty.

Michigan Lawmakers ask to join Texas lawsuit as well...


Michigan, Pennsylvania State Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court to Join Texas Election Lawsuit
By Janita Kan
December 10, 2020 Updated: December 10, 2020
Print

A group of state legislators and voters asked the Supreme Court on Thursday for permission to join Texas’s lawsuit challenging 2020 election results in four states.

Among the members listed in the request (pdf) are those who had previously filed lawsuits seeking to de-certify election results either in state or federal courts. These include several voters and Pennsylvania state legislators Daryl D. Metcalfe, Chris E. Dush, and Thomas R. Sankey III, whose lawsuit was dismissed by a state judge.

Meanwhile, a group of Michigan state legislators have also signed on to the brief asking to intervene in the case.

President Donald Trump and his allies have pinned great expectations on the Texas lawsuit, with the president characterizing the case as “the big one.” The court has not indicated whether it would take up the case, even though the justices have original jurisdiction over the dispute. This means that the court has the power to hear the case for the first time as opposed to reviewing a lower court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States,” Trump wrote in a Twitter statement on Thursday.

The legislators and voters are not the only people attempting to join the case. Trump and six states with Republican attorney generals—Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah—have also asked the top court to allow them to join Texas in the case.

The state of Texas had asked the Supreme Court on Dec. 7 for permission to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an attempt to protect the integrity of the 2020 election.

The Lone Star State has accused the four states of changing election rules in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Electors Clause, unequal treatment of voters, and causing voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity protections under state law, opening up potential for voting fraud.

“Taken together, these flaws affect an outcome-determinative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued in his brief (pdf).

All four defendant states have filed their response to Texas’s request, opposing the allegations.

Thirty-nine states have revealed which side they stand on in this election saga, with 18 Republican attorney generals filing briefs backing Texas and 20 Democratic attorneys general supporting the defendant states.

Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost backed neither party but asked the court to review the fundamental question presented in Texas’s request.

So far, five other states with Republican attorney generals—Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Kentucky—have not taken action in the dispute. But Alaskan Gov. Mike Dunleavy told The Epoch Times in a statement that his attorney general was unable to review the motion in time to take action on the case.

Texas is hoping to obtain a declaration from the Supreme Court that the four states conducted their 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. It is also asking the court to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, the suit is asking the justices to order state legislatures to appoint new electors according to the U.S. Constitution.

The proposed intervenors in the case are: Michigan state legislators Gary Eisen, John Reilly, Julie Alexander, Matt Maddock, Daire Rendon, Beth Griffin, Douglas Wozniak, Michele Hoitenga, Brad Paquette, Rodney Wakeman, Greg Markkanen, Jack O’Malley, Joe Bellino, Luke Meerman and Brianna Kahle; Pennsylvania state legislators Daryl D. Metcalfe, Mike Puskaric, Chris E. Dush and Thomas R. Sankey III; Wisconsin resident Ronald H. Heuer; Georgia resident John Wood; and Michigan residents Angelic Johnson, Dr. Linda Lee Tarver, and Kristina Karamo.

This case is cited as Texas v. Pennsylvania (22O155).

LINK

Video at the link:

Lou Dobbs Guest: Forensic Audit Of MI Dominion Voting Machine Being Hidden

rehashing some of the previous posts

first,

Richard Barron, director of elections in Fulton County, GA:

we scanned 113,130 ballots and we adjudicated 106,000 ballots. He describes a process for absentee ballots.

Once they go to a scanner, they go some place else to be adjudicated.

"THE ONLY BALLOTS THAT ARE ADJUDICATED ARE IF WE HAVE A BALLOT IN WHICH THERE IS SOME QUESTION AS TO HOW THE COMPUTER READS IT. SO THE VOTE REVIEW PANEL THEN DETERMINES VOTER INTENT."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?...rgia-election-update


106,000 out of 113,130 ? Why so many ?

Now couple that w the video about how ballots are adjudicated. Someone makes a decision and marks the ballot accordingly. What happens to the original ballot ?

Is it thrown away ? Does the adjudicator ballot replace the original?

If it doesn't, what happens in a recount ? Do they have to adjudicate 106,000 ballots again ?

Well at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the Texas lawsuit and if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case. And should the SC take the case the lawsuit brought by Texas deals with and only with the fact that non state legislator actors altered election laws in those states and that under those states Constitutions only the states legislators are allowed to alter these election statues. As I understand it that it in a nutshell.

The Dominion voting machines, individual affidavits, video's of suitcases under tables and all this other stuff is not going to be considered by the court. At least directly. Are the judges aware of all these thing, have they read the blogs and seen the videos? Most likely they have and how much weight this would carry in the thought process we will probably never know.

One thing I hope to see is all these things will be pursued and criminal charges brought against all these participants when this thing swings back to Trump. But for now all those things are on the back burner.

quote:

Well at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the Texas lawsuit and if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case.

Maybe. I think they will. I think they must realize that they have abdicated responsibility and make themselves completely irrelevant if they don't. But, it's not "the end of the day" if they don't. It just gets a whole lot messier.

I just don’t see how SCOTUS can not take up this case. These are real and direct violations of the Constitution. If they decide to ignore it and throw it away then I guess there is no real use for have a Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Well at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the Texas lawsuit and if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case.

Maybe. I think they will.

I'd be shocked if they decide to hear it. But the way this year has been anything could happen, lol. Hopefully we'll know today, though they may take longer.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Well at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the Texas lawsuit and if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case.

Maybe. I think they will.

I'd be shocked if they decide to hear it. But the way this year has been anything could happen, lol. Hopefully we'll know today, though they may take longer.

Why would you be shocked if they decide to hear it?

quote:

Originally posted by Largefarva:

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Well at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the Texas lawsuit and if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case.

Maybe. I think they will.

I'd be shocked if they decide to hear it. But the way this year has been anything could happen, lol. Hopefully we'll know today, though they may take longer.

Why would you be shocked if they decide to hear it?

I'd suggest doing some reading on the type of case it is. I don't feel like typing a lot out at the moment but in summary = The arguments made have been litigated in numerous courts before, both before and after the election. In both federal and state courts, in multiple states. The SC very rarely takes something they feel should be heard in a state or federal court. Also, one of the claims of TX is that the SC should hear it because it is unique and they are the only proper venue. All of the other parties that have signed on to it have actually hurt that part of the argument. There are a other reasons as well, those are just some quick ones. This is of course just my opinion, though numerous attorneys, including ones that have appeared before the SC many times, share it. We shall see.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

I'd suggest doing some reading on the type of case it is. I don't feel like typing a lot out at the moment but in summary = The arguments made have been litigated in numerous courts before, both before and after the election. In both federal and state courts, in multiple states. The SC very rarely takes something they feel should be heard in a state or federal court. Also, one of the claims of TX is that the SC should hear it because it is unique and they are the only proper venue. All of the other parties that have signed on to it have actually hurt that part of the argument. There are a other reasons as well, those are just some quick ones. This is of course just my opinion, though numerous attorneys, including ones that have appeared before the SC many times, share it. We shall see.

None of that is at all in line with my understanding of this lawsuit. For instance, this case can't possibly be heard in a state or federal appeals court. It has to go to SCOTUS. And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

quote:

And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

It hasn't. It has been dismissed on procedural grounds in every Court.
If you bring suit before the election, you either lack standing or have no damages.
If you bring suit after the election, you either lack standing or it's moot.
Too late.... so sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

I'd suggest doing some reading on the type of case it is. I don't feel like typing a lot out at the moment but in summary = The arguments made have been litigated in numerous courts before, both before and after the election. In both federal and state courts, in multiple states. The SC very rarely takes something they feel should be heard in a state or federal court. Also, one of the claims of TX is that the SC should hear it because it is unique and they are the only proper venue. All of the other parties that have signed on to it have actually hurt that part of the argument. There are a other reasons as well, those are just some quick ones. This is of course just my opinion, though numerous attorneys, including ones that have appeared before the SC many times, share it. We shall see.

None of that is at all in line with my understanding of this lawsuit. For instance, this case can't possibly be heard in a state or federal appeals court. It has to go to SCOTUS. And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

The ability of a state to alter their own election laws (among other things) in ways they see fit (leaving out the state legislature at times) has absolutely been heard in court before in the last year, in multiple states. TX is basically saying they disagree with how other states conduct their own business. There is plenty to read out there about this case, much more lengthy and well written then what I've said. Hopefully we'll know what the SC decides to do later today.

How Texas’s Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania Defends Our Civil Rights

Commonsense jurisprudence will recognize the open-shut argument that voters' civil rights were violated by vote dilution during an unconstitutional election process.

https://thefederalist.com/2020...ds-our-civil-rights/