The Steve Turley video on the previous page is encouraging.

Searched and did not see this posted. Interesting potential positive news for a Michigan county.

Will A Small County In Northern Michigan Be The Key To Overturning The Nation’s Election Results? America Should Find Out On Monday

By Joel Hoft
Published December 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM

(Images of Dominion tabulation machine counts available at the link)

"The untold story of a battle to reveal the truth about Dominion voting machines is brewing in Michigan, and not surprisingly, it’s getting very little coverage by the mainstream media.

In a solidly red county in northern Michigan where Trump banners, flags, and yard signs can be found in almost every front yard, voters woke up to discover Joe Biden had walloped President Trump, only to find out shortly later that Dominion voting machines flipped thousands of votes cast for Trump to his Democratic challenger Joe Biden. The media called it a “glitch” and blamed it on human error.

Earlier this week, we reported about the lawsuit filed by Matthew DePerno of DePerno Law on behalf of Central Lake resident William Bailey. In addition to thousands of votes that were flipped from President Trump to Democrat candidate Joe Biden, Bailey was concerned about ballots that were re-run through the Dominion tabulator machine after a 262-262 tie on a vote a ballot initiative that would allow a marijuana establishment to be located within the Village of Central Lake.

While ballots were being inserted into the machine, 3 of the ballots were destroyed and were not placed through the tabulator. At the conclusion of the recount by the tabulating machine and with three fewer votes, the result was 262-261, and the initiative passed. Of course, this result could only be possible after 3 of the ballots were destroyed.

Two more unexplainable vote counts in Antrim County also left voters stunned by the unexplainable outcome of the vote result by Dominion. In Central Lake’s School Board election, 742 votes were added to the total after a recount on November 6. (First image below)

Dominion’s vote totals showed 663 people voted in a district where there were only 6 eligible voters and only 3 of those 6 actually voted. Somehow, Dominion added 660 additional votes to the final tally. (Second image)



“Based on all the allegation of fraud, statutory violations, and other misconduct,” DePerno wrote, “it is necessary to immediately permit the plaintiff to take a forensic image of the 22 precinct tabulators, thumb drives, related software, the Clerk’s “master tabulator,” and conduct an investigation of those images, after which a manual recount of the election results and independent audit of the November 3 election may be ordered to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the election.”

In his lawsuit, Matthew DePerno claims that based on the evidence they have provided to the court that Dominion Voting Systems “committed material fraud or error in this election so that the outcome of the election was affected.”

At 5:30 PM on Friday, December 4, 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin A. Elsenheimer granted permission to William Bailey and his team of IT experts to conduct a forensic study of the 16 Dominion voting machines, tabulators, thumb drives, related software, and the Clerk’s “master tabulator.” In his court order, Bailey was also granted the ability to conduct an independent investigation of the images they obtained in their examination.

Matthew DePerno was able to quickly assemble a team of seven highly trained forensic IT experts who agreed to arrive the next day (Saturday) to conduct the forensic examination.

After 8 hours, the collection was complete. With 16 CF cards (similar to SIM cards), 16 thumb drives, and forensic images of the Dominion voting machines in hand, the IT team was escorted to the local Antrim County Airport by two Antrim County Sheriff vehicles, where they boarded their jet plane with evidence in hand.

DePerno waited patiently for the results of the forensic examination of the Dominion voting machines to arrive. While he was waiting for the results, Michigan’s radical Attorney General Dana Nessel who won her election after bragging she was the best candidate for the job because she didn’t have a penis, added Michigan’s far-left, dishonest Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to the lawsuit as a defendant on Wednesday.



On Friday, Constitutional Attorney Matthew DePerno, who is now in possession of the initial preliminary results of the forensic examination of the Dominion voting machine, 16 CV data cards, and 16 thumb drives from the Dominion machines, filed an emergency order asking Judge Kevin Elsenheimer to lift the protective order prohibiting him from sharing the results of the inspection, calling it a matter of “national security.” In his emergency motion, DePerno reminds the judge that time is of the essence, as the deadline for electors to vote for the next President is Monday, December 14, 2020.



In his order, Deperno states that Secretary of State Benson has refused to permit a forensic examination of the Dominion software, presumably because she is fearful of violating the Licensing agreement with Dominion. DePerno points out that the agreement produced by Antrim County was not signed and that they have not been able to verify that the contract was actually signed.



DePerno asked for the preliminary results of the election to be released to the people of Antrim Co, of the State of MI, of the USA, and to the President and Vice President of the United States, as well as Chad Wolf, Sec. of Homeland Security and DNI John Ratcliff.



In his emergency order, DePerno argues that the protective order placed on sharing the forensic examination results was to prevent the plaintiff from reverse engineering Dominion’s software for malicious purposes. DePerno argues that his plaintiff, Mr. Bailey, and his IT team have no intention of reverse-engineering the software for malicious purposes. Mr. DePerno adds, “the public interest weighs in favor of granting the Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction.” He explains, “The Court believes that confirming the accuracy, integrity, and security of the electoral process is a greater public interest at this juncture than the potential misuse of reverse engineering data.”

Later today, Attorney Matthew DePerno received word that 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin A Elseneheimer would hear his case. Curiously, DePerno, who filed the emergency motion, found out about the hearing when he saw an article published by the far-left Detroit Free Press at 2:13 PM. DePerno then received an email from Antrim County attorney Haider Kazim at 2:50 PM and received notice directly from the Court at 3:02 PM. According to DePerno, the hearing will take place at 8:30 AM EST on Monday."

Loosing faith/confidence in the process is not the same as giving up on a man.


$.02 worth,
Boss

quote:

Originally posted by Boss1:
Loosing faith/confidence in the process is not the same as giving up on a man.


$.02 worth,
Boss

QFT.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I am extremely disappointed in the USSC

I had hoped that after all we had done to put conservatives back on the court and bolster their ranks so they they would be a co-equal branch yet again they abandoned us when the chips were down

Alito surprised me

I would have thought they would have gladly taken up the case and done what was right

but I was wrong

it appears that the DoJ and ALL of its infestations as well as the courts are NOT on the side of the Constitution

I’ve read the briefs and several of the relevant cases and, based on that, I think the Court did exactly what it should have done - follow the law regardless who it would benefit to do otherwise. There might be a case that will allow a correct-thinking majority to so something about this shameful election, but this wasn’t it.

Lin Wood, from Newsmax on Saturday night

While the Supreme Court has rejected taking up Texas v. Pennsylvania, attorney Lin Wood on Newsmax TV said he is hopeful his case will be heard on merit and standing; otherwise, President Donald Trump and Martial law might be in order.

"The premise of my case is simple: I take the position the Nov. 3 election was unlawful and unconstitutional, because the election was held using procedures for mail absentee ballots that were developed by the secretary of state in a backroom deal over the Democratic Party of March of 2020," Wood told Saturday's "The Count" with co-hosts Tom Basile and Heather Childers.

"They changed the procedures and you cannot change the procedures in a federal election unless it is done by the state legislature. So, for that reason, the election is unlawful, the recount that followed was unlawful, and the Jan. 5 runoff is unlawful."

Wood's case is filed with the Supreme Court against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

"I believe my case has merit," Wood told Basile. "I hope the Supreme Court will agree to hear it."

On standing, Wood said he is filing his lawsuit as a voter in Georgia, which makes him the "property party to file the lawsuit."

Wood noted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's Texas v. Pennsylvania case was rejected Friday night not on merit, but standing. He added his calls for a special Georgia legislative session has been ignored by GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, GOP Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, GOP Secretary of State Raffensperger, and GOP Attorney General Chris Carr.

"They're not very responsive," Wood lamented. "I think that's because they've been corrupted by Chinese money, and they've got something to hide."

If the U.S. Supreme Court continues to deny to hear election lawsuits, Wood suggested, Trump should declare "some extent of Martial law."

"If the Supreme Court does not act, someone who cares about the rule of law in this country has to act: That would be President Donald Trump," Wood concluded. "If the Supreme Court does not act, I think the president should declare some extent of Martial law, and he should hold off an stay the electoral college.

"Because we cannot have in this country, an election of our leader, where you have massive evidence of fraud and illegality. This country has to have a vote that has integrity. And the electoral college does not need to meet and vote until we have resolved these issues."

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
Wisconsin case (which was argued today) is dead...

Link...

Appointed by President Trump no less...

Wisconsin judge, appointed by Trump, dismisses election lawsuit…

A federal judge in Wisconsin on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the state elections commission.

The judge in the case, Brett Ludwig, who was appointed by Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, held a hearing where the president’s lawyers made their arguments to set aside the result of the state’s popular election.

“This is an extraordinary case,” wrote Ludwig in his decision Saturday.

“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits,” the judge wrote. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed’ …. It has been,” the judge continued. Ludwig dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice.

Trump’s lawyers had argued that guidance issued by the Wisconsin Elections Commission related to absentee ballots, “along with election officials’ conduct in reliance on that guidance,” deviated so much from state election law “that the election was itself a ‘failure,’ ” Ludwig wrote.

But Ludwig wrote that Trump “has not proved that defendants violated his rights under the Electors Clause. To the contrary, the record shows Wisconsin’s Presidential Electors are being determined in the very manner directed by the Legislature, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution,” the judge said.

****

Problem is, to have standing someone needs to have been harmed by the laws not being followed. Had Trump sued BEFORE the election he would not have been harmed at that point and the judge would have thrown it out for that reason. The judge knows this, I’m sure.

Twisted logic: Trump wasn’t harmed because the electors are being determined by state law, ignoring the fact that their apportionment is being skewed by dramatic violations of the very same laws.

If not for the violations of state law, the electors would be Trump electors, so Trump IS HARMED.

It's becoming obvious that the Courts are not going to rise to the occasion. The judges in these cases are mostly dismissing on procedural grounds, such as lack of standing OR they are saying the remedy sought is too big and this is a question for the legislature, not the courts.

Regarding the Supreme Court, Dick Morris says an unsayable truth.

By Andrea Widburg

Friday night, the Supreme Court’s rejected Texas’s case against the disputed states for “lack of standing.” There are a lot of theories for this decision, but Dick Morris said the unsayable: The Supreme Court was intimidated by the Democrats’ promised court-packing scheme.

The Texas lawsuit went directly to the Supreme Court because it is the only court that can litigate a dispute between two states, and therefore has original jurisdiction for such disputes. Texas’s claim was that the defendant states, by violating constitutional mandates for conducting their elections, injured Texas – which used legal means to vote for Trump – by fraudulently handing the election to Biden.

The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, swiftly rejected the case:

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

That facile statement is an insult to Trump supporters. “Standing” is not a complicated concept. In Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990) 495 U.S. 149, 155, the Supreme Court explained,

To establish an Art. III case or controversy, a litigant first must clearly demonstrate that he has suffered an “injury in fact.” That injury, we have emphasized repeatedly, must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense. The complainant must allege an injury to himself that is “distinct and palpable,” . . . as opposed to merely “[a]bstract,” . . . and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” *** Further, the litigant must satisfy the “causation” and “redressability” prongs of the Art. III minima by showing that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”

Texas met those requirements, showing an “injury in fact” that is “distinct and palpable,” that “can be traced to the challenged action” and that can be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Texas was not just whining how “another State conducts its elections.” This was not a case of “they ought to have used pink paper, not blue paper,” or “the polls should have been open an extra two hours.” Such inconsequential statements would have been claims of the type the Court’s statement described.

What Texas alleged was more profound: The defendant states engaged in unconstitutional conduct to create the circumstances by which Democrat activists (and, possibly, foreign agents) could commit fraud in order to hand the election to Biden. Understood the proper way, not only does Texas, in which Trump won, have a say in what those states did, so does every Trump voter in America.

It’s indisputable that the defendant states unconstitutionally changed their election laws through court action or settlement agreements. Additionally, in each defendant state, there is voluminous (and mostly uncontested) evidence that these rule changes allowed Democrats to engage in massive fraud to shift their citizens’ votes from Trump to Biden.

Had this unconstitutionally enabled fraud not happened, the disputed states would have elected Trump and Trump would have won the national election. That Biden “won” the national election through this fraud is a real harm to every Trump voter and can be remedied through the Court’s intervention. There’s your standing.

That being the case, why did the Supreme Court punt? One theory is that it wants “clean” cases that come up through the state court systems. Another theory is that the Court believes that this is an issue that legislatures, not the Court, should address. Marco Rubio has the right answer to that one:



And then there’s Dick Morris’s take:

“The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives – that’s their institution and that’s their duty,” Morris told Saturday’s “The Count.” “I believe the Supreme Court was sent a message by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party during the election.

“And the message was: ‘If you overturn this election, we will pack you, and make your Court basically meaningless.’”

[snip]

“And just ask yourself: Who raised the issue of Court packing? We didn’t. Why would the Democrats raise an issue that was hurting them? We would never bring it up; we never thought of packing the Court. They did.”

Morris concluded, “it was a systemic effort, that succeeded, to intimidate the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Unless the Supreme Court surprises me this coming week (and I really hope it does and that I am being wrong and unfair here), there’s every to believe reason that the justices are more concerned with status and safety than they are with election integrity and constitutional principles.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...h.html#ixzz6gW9mXqVl

Either we are delusional or the judges in our country have all been corrupted. No middle ground.

I don't have faith in any of them choosing to do the right thing at this point. Sad knowing our country as we know it is gone.

It doesn't sound like Trump's lawyers are arguing fraud in front of the court or bringing any evidence whatsoever regarding fraud. They are simply arguing about legalities in regards to state election laws and the Constitution, and federal judges and the Supreme Court don't seem to have any interest at all in weighing in on that.

Freak me. It's the fraud damn it that is the issue here. But sadly it seems that it will be maybe years before the full extent of that is revealed. So damned frustrating.

Good video:


Pennsylvania Sen. Doug Mastriano: We’re Standing Firm With Trump

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...reaking-2020-12-13-1

^^And the USSC decision has 'green lighted' every other court to turn a blind eye to all the corruption and fraud. They've effectively 'approved/legitimized' the steal across the board

'Well, SCOTUS says it's okay...'. There probably isn't a court in the US that will now do anything, which effectively kills any further investigations (pointless if courts will do nothing)...

We'd have to find several voting machines with clear irrefutable admissable forensic evidence they flipped hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes at this point to stop the steal through legal remedy.

We're a banana republic... they'll never 'loose' a meaningful election again,

Embrace the serfdom.

$.02 worth...

Boss

The USSC has seriously underestimated the consequences from its decision.

It’s desire for self preservation first and the country second is not going to stand well with a lot of people.

They have in fact become political puppets and the people should now rightly take justice into their own hands since the court has absolved itself of any semblance of responsibility.

A simple way to validate absentee ballots.
This guy describes an easy method to verify ballots as fraudulent.
Only problem is or politicians stand between us and the native ballot images that we the public own.

“It’s a Real Simple Fact to Prove that There Was Massive Fraud in This Election” – Inventor of QR Code Can Prove It



Jovan Hutton Pulitzer was mentioned in Michigan hearings.
Parler Link to Michigan Hearing

quote:

We're a banana republic... they'll never 'loose' a meaningful election again, and they've set us, and our children, on the path to serfdom...

Still, I would not use that as an excuse not to vote. The Georgia Senate run-off elections are meaningful elections and all eyes will be on them. Don't stay home and just hand it to them. If they are to be stolen, make them work so hard for it that it's obvious and we may have a chance to stop it.

Not only have the people lost faith in our elections, they've now lost faith in our judicial system.

Civil war is coming whether people like it or not.

quote:

Not only have the people lost faith in our elections, they've now lost faith in our judicial system.

Disagree.

What we have 'lost faith in' is the fraudulent traitors in the positions of responsibility, who have distorted the legal process by their own partisan performance OUTSIDE the laws of that system.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

Not only have the people lost faith in our elections, they've now lost faith in our judicial system.

Disagree.

What we have 'lost faith in' is the fraudulent traitors who have distorted the legal process by their own partisan performance OUTSIDE the laws of that system.

Name a judge outside of the one brave woman in PA who has sided with the Constitution? Sure, some judges will give show "hearings" like the one in NV, but then throw the case out. Unless we are completely delusional truth and the Constitution no longer matter in our country.

The media, tech, and judges all the way up to SCOTUS are backing the stealing of an election in broad daylight. We are in trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

Not only have the people lost faith in our elections, they've now lost faith in our judicial system.

Disagree.

What we have 'lost faith in' is the fraudulent traitors in the positions of responsibility, who have distorted the legal process by their own partisan performance OUTSIDE the laws of that system.

The damn system is broken, yes, because of traitors and cowards. And, yes, we have lost faith in the system. Arguing semantics is not going to change anything.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
A simple way to validate absentee ballots.

WOW!!!