Recommended Posts

Docketing

This is a major ongoing process in Pennsylvania, Trump v Boockvar.  The latest filing was made well before deadline to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit as noted by Jenna Ellis in a tweet.  The filing is at the very last link below. It's only 277 pages long (but the main argument spreads over just 25 or so).  The Trump lawyers are Scaringi and Caffrey.

Quote

Trump Campaign lawsuit filed against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The suit challenges the results of the election and asks the court to prohibit the certification of results.

Direct link: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-3371_Documents-1.pdf

 

TOC-PennsylvaniaTrumpVBoockvar-scaringi.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to se

Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation am

Michael, everyone, Notice, too, the Pence-Ryan email exchange linked to from the letter: https://files.constantcontact.com/899f3f04701/106dc3d3-c645-4215-bdd3-addad65bade2.pdf Ellen

Posted Images

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

We are not alone in this space, so I think Lessons In Law would be gratefully accepted. If you have a better source of current and dead legal actions in Georgia than Democracy Docket, please share. 

You keep selling that fucking Democracy Docket run by a partner of Perkins Coie (the bagmen of Hillary Clinton--the ones who make legal her illegal payments) as if this were a replacement for the law.

I believe you have this wrong, Maestro, and I also believe you forgot a few points I made in recommending OL folks could use it as a tool. "Know thine enemy"  and their strategy and tactics.  Know what "the enemy" is arguing.  Get a feel for the thrust of Trump campaign efforts and future pleadings.

To the point that "selling the fucking Democracy Docket ... as if it were a replacement for the law."  This is inapt.

The first 'selling point' is that Elias and Co host the most comprehensive assembly of court proceedings attending the 2020 election. The next selling point is the same: do you want to read a particular and timely Judge's Opinion or Order, do you want to read the just-filed latest pleadings? If so, the latest Actual Legal Documents are basically three clicks away.

If there are other comprehensive, quickly-updated lists-with-links, organized-by-state, that lead readers to full filings, opinions, orders, appeals, it would be grand to post the site or sites. 

It doesn't matter if we do or don't like Marc Elias. Were he an evil satanist pedovore funded by the anti-Kraken forces, the lists and links are still plain records of official proceedings. 

Getting in a snit about this tool seems unproductive.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump lost, get over it?

He can run again in 4 years if he lives that long?

Up here in Canada we don’t really give a shit.  Both candidates will fuck us over one way or another.  Trump with tariffs on Aluminium and steel, Biden with wanting to kill Keystone XL.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada First , I can get behind that. I wonder which path will would best for a shared Build Back Better push ?

USMCA or more old school NAFTA, seriously I don’t know which would erode the middle class fastest.

  • Smile 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, when you read about a setback for the Trump Team in this or that case, it is best to think about it like losing a down in a football game. Not a touchdown.

The idiot press spins it to be more than it is, but that's the idiot press.

If a case is ever to get to the Supreme Court, it has to get there on appeal, no?

So of there are not appeals, there is no Supreme Court case.

Kinda obvious...

:)

If there is something that the Trump Team wants to take to the Supreme Court, a setback is just what they need. And the good news is that some setbacks with constitutional implications are being issued without delay. So at least, in those cases, the other side is not trying to run out the clock on bullshit.

That's called a flash of integrity.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a good old fashioned subpoena based on a "FAILED" lawsuit (not gut feeling, fact :evil: ) that is not supposed to have any more legal effect as an open lawsuit because yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy dockets?

I'm speaking specifically about Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG.

Look it up and weep and see how failed it is.

:) 

For those who just want the broad strokes, issuance of the subpoena would have been impossible had the lawsuit "FAILED".

But obviously it did not fail despite yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy dockets...

It served as premise for issuing a subpoena. And this particular subpoena is demanding all materials, video recordings (including erased tapes), work orders and other documents, and so on regarding the famous busted pipe incident when the voting was shut down in Atlanta on election night.

Look at how L Lin Wood wrote the tweet... He already knows what is on that material and he knew it before he had the subpoena issued.

Imagine, say, if instead of a busted pipe, we get people doing fishy things to the voting machines during the shutdown...

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a 'reductionist' cut of a Scott Adams' video from today ... he makes some predictions and scopes out the weight and impact of White House 'persuasion'  versus what he gauges as 'misinformation.' I cut down a ten minute video to try to capture the main points. Click the link in the tweet to go to the full shew.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who just want the broad strokes, issuance of the subpoena would have been impossible had the lawsuit "FAILED".

But obviously it did not fail despite yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy dockets...

It served as premise for issuing a subpoena. And this particular subpoena is demanding all materials, video recordings (including erased tapes), work orders and other documents, and so on regarding the famous busted pipe incident when the voting was shut down in Atlanta on election night.

Look at how L Lin Wood wrote the tweet... He already knows what is on that material and he knew it before he had the subpoena issued.

Imagine, say, if instead of a busted pipe, we get people doing fishy things to the voting machines during the shutdown...

Lin followed it with a joke.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Persuasive.

TF,

I saw an interview yesterday or the day before yesterday with Patrick Byrne.

Overtock.com Founder Patrick Byrne Says Two Top Level Republicans Involved In The Election Rigging

The video (about an hour) is at the bottom of the page in that link.

And that's just one project among a plethora of projects out there.

Challenging this election is no longer about legal maneuvers. This is a social movement rising up from grass roots with countless people chipping in on their own.

It's a beautiful thing to behold...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TF,

I saw an interview yesterday or the day before yesterday with Patrick Byrne.

 

It's a beautiful thing to behold...

:)

Michael

https://hereistheevidence.com

"Due to the irregularity of this current 2020 Presidential Election, this is a crowdsourcing tool for organizing anomalies and legal issues. Our desire is that more of the election process would be made transparent so there would be unquestionable confidence in our voting systems.

This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in court, not general election news stories or updates.

Submitted items may be edited or deleted to ensure quality of content.

To submit another source under a claim, use the same claim title.

Data takes a few moments to load."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

News out of Pennsylvania's United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ... 

On 11/23/2020 at 2:59 PM, william.scherk said:

[Case number 20-3371] a major ongoing process in Pennsylvania, Trump v Boockvar.  The latest filing was made well before deadline to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit as noted by Jenna Ellis in a tweet.  

The latest opinion is a relatively brief 27 pages: 2020-11-27-Trump-v.-Boockvar-CA3-Opinion-Denying-Relief.pdf (democracydocket.com)

Basically, "[W]e deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal."

Trump-v-Boockvar.png

Onward and upward!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concord Hymn

 

Sung at the Completion of the Battle Monument, July 4, 1837

 

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
   Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
   And fired the shot heard round the world.
 
The foe long since in silence slept;
   Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
   Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
 
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
   We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
   When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
 
Spirit, that made those heroes dare
   To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
   The shaft we raise to them and thee.
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Basically, "[W]e deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal."

This is great news.

Now this one case (among others) can go one step closer to the Supreme Court.

:)

Just so people understand, this case is not a fraud case. It is a case of unequal protection on a systemic level by the Pennsylvania Electoral Board and relevant authorities. In other words, it is a case dealing solely with a Constitutional issue. Couched in between comments that Rudy did not present any evidence, the Third Circuit Judges admitted as much.

I found this comment at the very beginning amusing.

Quote

... Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects.

All the Rudy team needs to demonstrate is that one of these "technical defects" admittedly overlooked in Pennsylvania law--and by admission in the Third Circuit--infringes Constitutional law and that alone is enough to request SCOTUS look at it.

That's just one hole I saw that glared out at me, as a layman, on skimming through the ruling. I saw other holes, too, but I don't want to litigate this as a layman on a discussion forum. But I want to mention a silly phrase that, to me, did not belong in a ruling of this nature:

Quote

As discussed, the Campaign cannot win this lawsuit.

That beauty was right under the title:

Quote

The Campaign has no strong likelihood of success on the merits.

So which is it? The Campaign has no strong likelihood of success or the Campaign cannot win? It cannot be both at the same time since one implies a possibility and the other denies the possibility.

But that's just the equivalent of legal snark. It has no bearing on anything.

On the legal essence SCOTUS-wise, leave it to say, whenever the text of the ruling was extremely harsh against the Trump people, you will also find a Constitutional issue admitted to and dismissed as irrelevant. This is SCOTUS food.

In fact, from what I saw, Rudy & Co. got exactly the decision they actually sought (as opposed to formally sought) and needed for a SCOTUS strategy.

So why did Jenna mention fraud in her tweet and mention the proof of fraud presented in a hearing?

I can't say for sure, but I bet this will be included as context in their petition. And in that case, from what I read in an American Thinker article, SCOTUS will be called on to judge a Constitutional issue and if they find against the issue, they will have to own up publicly that they find election fraud irrelevant. And that would be disastrous for SCOTUS as an institution. 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading some of this thread over Thanksgiving, an interesting mention about the Stockdale Paradox has lead to some thoughts.  The main idea of the paradox is, "you need to balance realism with optimism" according to this article about it.  This reminds me of Rand's Razor in the cognitive/emotional realm, from an excerpt in ITOE, "The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."  The latter part that they are not to be integrated in disregard of necessity seems poignant at this stage of the 2020 election.

Here is something that Laura Ingraham recently said to illustrate the point of the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor, she recently said this on her show according to the USA Today:

“Unless the legal situation changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner, Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th," she said on "The Ingraham Angle."

Despite what she called "unpleasant" and "disappointing" election results, Ingraham told her viewers that "as much as we wish things were different, this is where things stand tonight."

"To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said. "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you."

So Laura Ingram, a staunch Trump supporter, practiced the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor by balancing optimism with reality in accordance with necessity:  as new context came in regarding the 2020 election legal challenges she came to the conclusion that it was time to abandon optimism and the recognize the reality that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th.  And something Laura said especially stood out to me, by replacing "Ingraham said" with "Ayn Rand said" in some of the text of the article, we come up with an interesting exercise:

"To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said Ayn Rand said.  "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben,

I disagree, not about the reality part. Laura Ingraham's approach is not a Stockdale Paradox. It is singing the narrative her Fox News bosses want her to sing.

Acknowledging the reality of a situation is one thing. Making a prediction of fact ("will be") full of qualifiers like "frankly unlikely event" is another.

This is spin (narrative), not acknowledgment of a negative reality simultaneous with belief in a positive outcome. Laura has no belief in a positive outcome. She only has a half-hearted hope. She has a belief in a negative outcome.

Spiritually, she is caving.

That's not a Stockdale Paradox. You have to have two incompatible thoughts for a paradox to even exist. Accepting an outcome as fact while hoping for a miracle is not a paradox.

Tokyo Rose Laura will win no wars. She will demoralize troops, though.

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To go Randian on this and switch things around on a quote, remember when Gail Wynand told Roark to design his house, then only design mediocre things thereafter?

He said, "That's easy," then designed a mediocre house for Wynand.

Let's suppose we are in a football game, it's half-time and our side is down say 30 points. (Metaphorically it's much less and the coach in my fictional example below is no Roark, but for illustration, this works.)

Someone says, "Let's be realistic."

The coach says, "That's easy." Then he tells the team, 

Unless our play changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner, we will lose this game at the end of the 4th quarter. The first half was unpleasant and disappointing, and as much as we wish things were different, this is where things stand right now.

To say this constitutes living in reality. If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance of us making a comeback by getting our act together, I'd be lying to you.

So we might as well start making plans on what we will do once we are knocked out of the running for the championship.

Say what you will about the virtue of thinking like this, one thing is for sure. A coach like that will not be winning many games.

:)

 

Also, continuing about Rand, there is a mental habit called blank-out. She talked about this often, too. Pretending that context is not part of reality is a massive blank-out and there are so many examples of others doing this in her works, that I can't even guess the number.

Ignoring the size of the fraud, the number of last minute changes in rules, the in-your-face thuggery and cheating, etc. etc. etc.  in this election as context for judging what to do right now, that is, blanking that context out and calling the rest "reality" as if it were all that needs to be considered, is definitively not the way I learned Randian epistemology.

 

On another point (or maybe continuing this one), it's very easy to shift gears later after a disaster happens and deal with that reality then. The context will have changed. It's, frankly, a stupid strategy to focus on a future where a disaster has already happened at the very moment you are fighting for the disaster to be avoided.

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On another point (or maybe continuing this one), it's very easy to shift gears later after a disaster happens and deal with that reality then. The context will have changed. It's, frankly, a stupid strategy to focus on a future where a disaster has already happened at the very moment you are fighting for the disaster to be avoided.

The reality we'd have if Biden became President is an administration working to sell American sovereignty to "the great reset."  Time for rebellion if that happened. The only excuse I see for supposed Trump supporters advising accepting defeat is their not understanding what's at stake, but seems to me that Laura Ingraham would have access to enough information she should understand.

Ellen

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The only excuse I see for supposed Trump supporters advising accepting defeat is their not understanding what's at stake, but seems to me that Laura Ingraham would have access to enough information she should understand.

Ellen,

She does.

She also gets tens of thousands of dollars each show. She understands that, too.

I don't hate Tokyo Rose Laura, but I am going to treat her according to her own standard. I will only deal with the possibility of watching her further after the inauguration. 

She lost me and, in terms of watching her further, I don't have the time or energy in the middle of the fight to argue the defeatist nuances of her statements.

In other words, 

Unless her spin situation changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner...

We know the rest.

:) 

btw - I agree with you that a rebellion will happen if a fraud is formally enshrined. I keep seeing people say that the enemies of Q have had it all wrong up to now. They thought Q was inciting things. It was actually keeping the peace and keeping a lid on armed reactions against the cheating. If the fraud gets enshrined and communism or great reset or any form of tyranny over America starts being implemented, all bets will be off.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a movement that has been growing in Pennsylvania for the legislature to exert its Constitutional power and simply choose the Electoral College delegates itself. If they do that, Pennsylvania will go to Trump even though it has already been called by the Governor for Biden.

The resolution was just launched in the PA Senate and, according to State Senator Doug Mastriano, it will be on the State House floor in a day or two and there is strong momentum to pass it.

This is coming about because of the hearing they held in Gettysburg a couple of days ago with Rudy, Jenna and about 8 or 9 of witnesses who have signed affidavits about election fraud they witnessed in PA and the current irregularities they can point to as product (like 47 missing thumb drives) under the penalty of perjury. Their testimony was so compelling, it moved the members of the PA Congress to organize this bill.

Let's see what happens, but if this comes off, it will be a shock to the system of everything that is happening right now all over America.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now