Fraud and Context in the 2020 USA Elections


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Then if the Gov. signs it, we will have the first big official bite out of Biden's legitimacy.

I don't believe the proposal will make it out of committee, or get to the governor's desk.

As the Wisconsin GOP state assembly majority leader said ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't make it out of the committee because every allegation listed was 100%! debunked?, every allegation was Kraken adjacent? ,every single ballot was ejudicated, every single legal challenge was reversed/denied on merits , every single one ? everybody knows its all a Big Lie ? or cuz politics ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Sidney Powell releases The Kraken!

William,

When news like that only gets sudden negative opinions and mockery, I feel good because it's hitting a nerve.

:)

btw - Do you know who had the largest strike out stats in baseball for the longest time? Babe Ruth. He swung for the rafters each time. He also had the largest home run stats.

It's an American thing, that is an attribute of an America the predator class is trying to obliterate and can't quite seem to do.

 

btw - On your favorite lawyer, here's some news.

Elias Called Before Grand Jury in Durham Investigation

Quote

Democrat lawyer Marc Elias, who helped fund the debunked Steele dossier that was used to launch a witch hunt investigation into former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, was called to testify before a grand jury as part of special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the Russia-Gate hoax.

Elias’s testimony was confirmed in a Tuesday court filing by Durham’s team in the case against Michael Sussman, a former colleague of Elias’s who was indicted last year. In the filing, Durham made it clear his investigation is “active” and “ongoing.”

Identified as “Campaign Lawyer-1” in the Sussmann indictment, Elias, who served as Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer in 2016, was asked to testify before the grand jury – presumably about his role in hiring Fusion GPS, the research firm that in turn hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele, on behalf of Clinton’s campaign.

Keep swingin'...

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tmj said:

Won't make it out of the committee because every allegation listed was 100%! debunked?

Pre-bunked, maybe, if we go by what the candidate Lake claimed:

Her claim is facially false  -- she said "Wisconsin Assembly Votes to Withdraw Its 10 Electors for Joe Biden in 2020 Election" and that is 81% horse manure.  Moreover, we have been warned before about checking details of claims made in the Gateway Pundit. 

In the larger context -- my opinion is that there is no such remedy available in law as "decertification" as sold. That cortège left the station on January 6, 2021. 

4 hours ago, tmj said:

every allegation was Kraken adjacent? ,every single ballot was ejudicated, every single legal challenge was reversed/denied on merits , every single one ? everybody knows its all a Big Lie ? or cuz politics ?

The Kraken quip was attached to MSK's forward-thinking quip.

My odds calculation was based on the odds calculation by the leader of the Wisconsin assembly -- he'd know more about it than us. But this wasn't reported in the GP teaser.

The reasoning that results in my opinion is pretty straightforward. The resolution sent to committee does not match some over-exhuberant takes. 

Is it hopium or copium? I get these mixed up. I think it's noteworthy as a curiosity or an example of what the Big Lie can entail. 

In other, related news, the current committee of benghazi looking at the gestation of the events of January 6 are said to be 'criminalizing' (as 'forgery' or 'fraudulent') the so-called alternative slates of Electors from the Stop the Steal action-map -- because they were sent 'as-if' they were official state communications, in some cases with state seals thereon.

As I understand it, there are four or more actual 'official' electors lists with would-be electors from each major party on the presidential/vice-presidential ballot. If you have perused the documents sent to the National Archives as 'certified,' in some cases, the official sealed & certified documents include as a matter of form the lists of electors who lost.

In the case of the committee of benghazi, they seem to be licking their chops over the suspicion that the people named, who were official "losers" from the six swing states, sent to the Archives 'as if' certificates separately -- probably under a plan hatched in the White House's orbit. John Eastman's memos, anybody? 

Is the FBI or DOJ going to have a look at these putative crimes?

I doubt it. I don't think 'hinky and hopeful' is a crime -- especially as it seems the Official  Blob known as the archives treated the ladies-in-waiting 'certificates of ascertainment' as curios. Without a forged governor's and SOS signature, what else could they be?

Edited by william.scherk
Spelling, grammar, clarity and francization of a couple words; spellink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

In the larger context -- my opinion is that there is no such remedy available in law as "decertification" as sold.

William,

I actually agree that the situation is more complicated than a simple decertification and removal of Biden.

Here's what I think will happen. Enough states are going to decertify their electoral college electors for being empowered fraudulently, enough to show Biden should not have been sworn in, then that will provoke a major constitutional crisis since there is no specific remedy given in the constitution for a fraudulent presidential election.

Where that will lead is up in the air. I believe--strongly--it will lead to a Convention of the States, probably after the 2022 elections, or maybe after 2024.  At that time, I think a constitutional amendment on election issues will be passed.

But I also believe the chances are great that some remedy will be agreed on along the way and the Biden administration will actually be removed due to a fraudulent election. I'm just not as certain of that outcome as others are because the Deep State resistance is going to be massive. They will pull out all stops and I would not be surprised to see a few assassinations among false flags galore.

The good news is the Deep State is already fucking up a lot on these things... 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No coincidence that Breyer is on his way out, and floating Kamala going to SCOTUS, then replace her as VP with who they want as President and then 25th Biden.

Sure looks like the play at this point to tie up all loose ends.

Now you get whomever you want as President, and then as VP, get Biden out, and Kamala is owned forever on the bench.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When news like that only gets sudden negative opinions and mockery, I feel good because it's hitting a nerve.

Morale often improves when leaders show a sunny attitude. I know my years of administrative and team leadership were most on the rails when I projected Feel Good.

Now, I was in error for most of these three paragraphs, or at least fully in error in my opinion in the last.

56 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

In the case of the committee of benghazi, they seem to be licking their chops over the suspicion that the people named, who were official "losers" from the six swing states, sent to the Archives 'as if' certificates separately -- probably under a plan hatched in the White House's orbit. John Eastman's memos, anybody? 

Is the FBI or DOJ going to have a look at these putative crimes?

I doubt it. I don't think 'hinky and hopeful' is a crime -- especially as it seems the Official  Blob known as the archives treated the ladies-in-waiting 'certificates of ascertainment' as curios. Without a forged governor's and SOS signature, what else could they be?

As it turns out, it was the Deep Blob at the archive who first flagged a couple of 'could be seen as phony' certificates and brought them to the attention of the benghazi committee's witchhunting maniacs.

This is credited to Aaron Parsley and appeared at People.com; it names Arizona and Michigan as having 'fakes' sent in: Fake Documents Declaring Trump and Pence the 2020 Winners Sent to but Rejected by National Archives: Report

Quote

[...]

The Arizona document, dated Dec. 7, 2020, lists the names of 11 electors voting for the Republican candidates while the state's actual 11 electors cast their votes on Dec. 14 for now-President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
 

The National Archives sent the forgery to Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs to alert her to the document and telling her it was being rejected, per Politico.

A spokesperson with the archives replied to PEOPLE's request for comment with a statement.
 

"The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration and, on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, coordinates certain functions of the Electoral College between the States and Congress. Acting as an intermediary, we review the Certificates of Ascertainment and Vote as soon as we receive them from their respective States and the District of Columbia," the spokesperson said in an email.
 

"OFR posts the Certificates on our website and makes the Certificates available for public inspection for one year following the election. After that year, the Certificates become part of the National Archives collection," the statement continued. "Under the Privacy Act, OFR does not disclose information about communication with private individuals.  As such, we cannot comment on what, if any, communication we've received except for the Certificates that are prepared and sent as part of an official State action."

I'll see if there is an overlap between the losers listed in this, the official Arizona certification at the Blob -- and the alleged 'forgery': https://www.archives.gov/files/ascertainment-arizona.pdf

Edited by william.scherk
Grammaire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I'll see if there is an overlap between the losers...

William,

I am of a mind right now that I don't give a damn.

I'm not trying to be rude.

I just don't have any enthusiasm for discussing over and over and over who was right and who was wrong in a massive fraud.

It's like trying to see which people on the crew of the Titanic performed well, which ones were derelict in their duties, which ones were skimming where they could, and on and on.

What I saw from all reports was that a big-ass ship went down. All the rest is meaningless yawp on that level.

Let law enforcement investigate or whatever. I leave the details to them. And even then, that's not going to bring the ship back up. Only salvage operations will do anything positive about the ship.

 

Ditto for the election fraud of 2020. A massive fraud was committed by the people behind the current administration.

I am interested in undoing the fraud so it cannot happen again. I am not interested in debating whether the fraud existed or not based on the actions of this or that person. Or whether Trump is Drumpf and all that. If Biden had had a legitimate election taken from him by fraud, I would still be against the fraud.

 

I'm of this same mind about the coronavirus atrocity and vaccine scam. I see people discussing each item of proof as if it were something new, but it's almost always the same or very similar stuff. I have been watching this for a couple of years now. That's about 700 days debating the same damn thing as if it were new ever damn day. It's tiring.

I don't care about big words or showing off to others as if I knew about viral science and other technical matters. I've seen enough to know that an attack and a swindle took place. I'll let the experts do the details.

I'm more into fixing the situation, starting by putting freedom back in its place in American society and reason back into science.

As to the experts, I'm only interested in experts who treasure freedom. Experts who promote authoritarians are just as much my enemy as the authoritarians are.

Let me emphasize that. I despise such experts. I spit on their reputations. I don't care if they are right or wrong. I want them--and all authoritarians--out of my way. I can't stand bullies.

Also, I hail as my kind of people, as people I admire, all those who feel the same, whether they agree or disagree with me on technical matters.

 

As to those who look at the Titanic and say it didn't really sink, who look at the 2020 election fraud and say no election fraud took place, who look at the coronavirus situation that arose and say no attack or vaccine swindle took place, I say give my regards to the head nurse at the funny farm. She's a great lady and has lots of patience...

Michael

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when Biden had zero chance of winning the nomination then folks started to drop out?

Remember how " well" Kamala did in that same nomination process then she became VP.

Same exact playbook with Breyer.

This is another move just like that to fix the current Biden/Harris ticket which has major problems.

Not sure exactly how it plays out but its the same thing.

Bet you dollars to donuts that Justice Breyer does not even want to resign.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Court finds Pennsylvania mail-in voting law unconstitutional"

(WHTM) – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has found the commonwealth’s no-excuse mail-in voting law, Act 77, is unconstitutional.

According to court documents, 14 members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives filed a petition to block the 2019 law that would allow any qualified voter to vote by mail.

The decision, by a five-judge Commonwealth Court panel of three Republicans and two Democrats, could be put on hold immediately by an appeal from Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration to the state Supreme Court.

The law allowed voters to submit a ballot by mail up to 50 days before an election and placed voters on a list to permanently receive a ballot application by mail. It also established 15 more days to register to vote and extended amil=in and absentee submission deadlines.

Act 77 also outlined rules for voting machine decertification and appropriated funding for voting machine upgrades that provide a verifiable paper trail.

4dee0343c444402ebedd97e58d9d1850-1-e1632
WWW.ABC27.COM

(WHTM) – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has found the commonwealth’s no-excuse mail-in voting law, Act 77, is...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

(Quoting ABC article):

The decision, by a five-judge Commonwealth Court panel of three Republicans and two Democrats, could be put on hold immediately by an appeal from Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration to the state Supreme Court.

TG,

I am very happy with this decision, but the appeals process--which is pretty corrupt in Pennsylvania--is what is making me not jump for joy.

On a longer-term view, this is great news because it gives a legal trail to fix this definitively when MAGA gets back in power.

With a legal trail like that, it's hard for the predator class's mockery and dismissals to be taken seriously by the different government institutions involved.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 6:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I am very happy with this decision, but the appeals process--which is pretty corrupt in Pennsylvania--is what is making me not jump for joy.

I want to amend this right now.

To start with, the American judicial system is complex, especially for lay people. So when I saw the news--blasted everywhere by the fake news media--that the decision to call Act 77 "unconstitutional" came from The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, I didn't realize that this court IS an appeals court. Before I looked, I thought it was a normal lower court. But it is an appeals court. So this is a big deal.

Future legal wranglings go to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, not to another appeals court. That changes things.

 

As aside on law

Before I go on, I want to mention something I realized a long time ago and have used successfully in my own life whenever I have had to deal with the law. It's a weird concept, but this is just the way it is. And it works once you know it.

When going to court or otherwise dealing with the law, one has to be aware that there are two realities. There is real reality where things happen, then there is the law, the legal environment, which, like it or not, is nothing but a bunch of rules made by human beings.

Reality and the law could not be more different. Even though people try to make them align, they often lead to opposing outcomes.

For instance, in real reality, a person can commit a murder, be seen by a lot of people while committing it, and there be no epistemological doubt in anyone's mind about what happened. But if the law is not obeyed during the legal proceedings, if the prosecutor botches the legal part, the murderer will not only go free, he will be immune from being charged again (double indemnity).

That means, when going to the law, the VERY FIRST THING one has to do is make sure REALITY is not the premise of any petition, but THE LAW is. In court, the law is the court's metaphysics, the foundation, the existence environment, not reality.

 

This was how courts all over America managed to skirt most all of the legal challenges to the 2020 election fraud. They did not allow the petitions to get accepted into the environment of the law. (This was called "standing," "technicalities," and sometimes by some of us out here, bullshit. :) )

But this was probably the biggest failing of all the pro-Trump legal petitions back then. The lawyers went to the courts with clear proof from reality, but ran into a brick wall: in the initial stage, reality is irrelevant to the courts. First, the petitions had to be accepted as legal, that is within the realm of the law. Reality be damned in that context.

Ironically, many of those petitions will probably get pro-Trump outcomes now that the legal barrier to entrance into the legal realm has broken wide open. Of course, they will have to be readjusted/resubmitted accordingly, but I have little doubt this is coming.

 

What happened this time

I'm not going to cite court cases, etc., as this takes up way too much time for the point right now. No weeds for now. Just what happened.

Basically, the Pennsylvania State government did a no-no in 2019 and passed Act 77, which deals with mail-in votes, voting machines, and other things. That law violates other Pennsylvania laws. What's worse, both Democrats and Republicans were in on it thinking they could use this to game the system. I'm mostly talking about establishment Republicans here, but I have little doubt some of the pro-Trump Republicans are less than honest.

(Technically, the Republicans wanted to get rid of voting machines having a button where a person could push once and vote for the same party on all seats--called “straight ticket” voting. Act 77 got rid of that. But out here in reality, without going into details, both Democrats and Republicans wanted to cheat. Did I hear someone say I'm being unfair? Heh. Well, those who trust politicians will trust politicians. Just try not to be near them when you need reality thinking like in natural disasters. :) )

So the Dems managed to game the system better than the Republicans did and win. This irked the establishment Republicans, even though they were not so bothered by the outcome.

So when the Trump-supporting Republicans submitted petitions questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, they were encouraged to use a reality-premise (evidence) rather than legal-environment premise (relevant laws and rulings for this context). The establishment Republicans knew this would go nowhere, which is what they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling. But the Trump-supporting Republicans were pissed and kept taking shots.

Finally, it dawned on one group to get the 2020 election into the legal environment indirectly by getting a critical and foundational legal issue decided first.

To use an analogy based on how hierarchical knowledge works, rather than judge a Chevrolet Malibu as an isolated issue, they looked at the concept "car" and talked about that. Note that whatever gets decided that applies to "car" will also apply to the Chevrolet Malibu since it is a car.

 

The case

So rather than declare the mail-in ballots in the 2020 election as fraudulent, and rather than even talk about the 2020 election, the Republicans sued to have Act 77 declared unconstitutional.

And it is.

I mean, Pennsylvania law is about as clear as it can be in this respect and it doesn't matter that Act 77 was passed by both houses and signed by the Governor.

So the appeals court had to look at Pennsylvania law going back well over a century saying (and I paraphrase), "You can't do XXX because it is unconstitutional to do so. If you want to change this to make it constitutional you have to go through process YYY."

And Act 77? It is nothing but XXX. And Process YYY? It never happened, nobody did it.

Within the law, there is no way to wiggle out of this.

A judge who declares Act 77 as constitutional is making a public declaration of being corrupt or too inept to be a judge because he or she can't read.

Even then, two Democrat judges (out of the 5, the other three being Republicans) in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania judged this contradiction ("it exists and does not exist at the same time") to be constitutional. But they could get away with that because they knew it would not matter to the public. They were going to lose the case anyway. So they could make nice to their base by showing they voted according to party line, say, "I couldn't help it," and nobody was going to notice anyway.

However, the Pennsylvania State Supreme court, which is mostly Democrat and corrupt as all hell, is going to have to face this issue where there is no such shadow to hide in. A humongous spotlight is on them and the entire world is watching.

They are going to have to say the state law that explicitly says something is unconstitutional is constitutional to please their party and fulfill their agenda. And that's a tough sell. Especially seeing how easy this is to get to SCOTUS and get overturned.

In short, this time around the issue is within the realm of the law as primary and not within reality as primary. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.

I will be very surprised to see the appeals court decision overturned despite partisan considerations, but if that happens, I will be even more surprised to see SCOTUS agree.

 

The outcome

After all that, we can now get to the 2020 election. 

Within the realm of the law, the question is no longer about cheating. It becomes a legal issue within the law itself: If ballots based on Act 77 are unconstitutional, why were they not unconstitutional in the 2020 election? Especially since there were relevant legal people clamoring exactly this back then?

Granted, there is the issue of applying current decisions to situations that were legal previously, but I think a great case can be made that the people who passed Act 77 knew it was unconstitutional at the time, or at least intentionally ignored that standard.

And that will be the crack that will make the whole dam bust wide open all over America. Why? Within the law (as opposed to within reality), judges cite each other's decisions all the time. It's no longer a reality thing. It's a legal thing. Judges using each other's decisions as precedent goes back practically to the founding of the Supreme Court.

But this will not overturn any election yet. Within the law, this will merely declare electoral college voters, first from Pennsylvania, then from the other states, as invalid. It will grant to states the power to recall electoral college voters and annul their votes.

At a certain point, it will be, within the law, an issue that Biden did not satisfy the legal requirements to be sworn in. But another process will have to happen once it is proven that Biden's election was not in alignment with the law.

Does anyone doubt that process will happen in today's world? It will.

And we are going to nail that bastard and all those around him. People on that side are eventually going to prison.

 

In the worst possible outcome, suppose Act 77 is declared as constitutional. It's still going to be bad for the bad guys because the 2020 election issue (with a gazillion spinoffs) is now within the realm of the law as its fundament as opposed to the realm of reality. Now, evidence that obeys the requirements to get into the legal system can be presented.

So, even in this worst case, others can and will take their shots. Don't forget, there is a hell of a lot of pro-Trump legal talent out there all over America. The initial error is now fixed, the legal path is clearly demarcated, and the door is wide open.

Some might even call this the Kraken.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 12:30 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to amend this right now.

To start with, the American judicial system is complex, especially for lay people. So when I saw the news--blasted everywhere by the fake news media--that the decision to call Act 77 "unconstitutional" came from The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, I didn't realize that this court IS an appeals court. Before I looked, I thought it was a normal lower court. But it is an appeals court. So this is a big deal.

Future legal wranglings go to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, not to another appeals court. That changes things.

 

As aside on law

Before I go on, I want to mention something I realized a long time ago and have used successfully in my own life whenever I have had to deal with the law. It's a weird concept, but this is just the way it is. And it works once you know it.

When going to court or otherwise dealing with the law, one has to be aware that there are two realities. There is real reality where things happen, then there is the law, the legal environment, which, like it or not, is nothing but a bunch of rules made by human beings.

Reality and the law could not be more different. Even though people try to make them align, they often lead to opposing outcomes.

For instance, in real reality, a person can commit a murder, be seen by a lot of people while committing it, and there be no epistemological doubt in anyone's mind about what happened. But if the law is not obeyed during the legal proceedings, if the prosecutor botches the legal part, the murderer will not only go free, he will be immune from being charged again (double indemnity).

That means, when going to the law, the VERY FIRST THING one has to do is make sure REALITY is not the premise of any petition, but THE LAW is. In court, the law is the court's metaphysics, the foundation, the existence environment, not reality.

 

This was how courts all over America managed to skirt most all of the legal challenges to the 2020 election fraud. They did not allow the petitions to get accepted into the environment of the law. (This was called "standing," "technicalities," and sometimes by some of us out here, bullshit. :) )

But this was probably the biggest failing of all the pro-Trump legal petitions back then. The lawyers went to the courts with clear proof from reality, but ran into a brick wall: in the initial stage, reality is irrelevant to the courts. First, the petitions had to be accepted as legal, that is within the realm of the law. Reality be damned in that context.

Ironically, many of those petitions will probably get pro-Trump outcomes now that the legal barrier to entrance into the legal realm has broken wide open. Of course, they will have to be readjusted/resubmitted accordingly, but I have little doubt this is coming.

 

What happened this time

I'm not going to cite court cases, etc., as this takes up way too much time for the point right now. No weeds for now. Just what happened.

Basically, the Pennsylvania State government did a no-no in 2019 and passed Act 77, which deals with mail-in votes, voting machines, and other things. That law violates other Pennsylvania laws. What's worse, both Democrats and Republicans were in on it thinking they could use this to game the system. I'm mostly talking about establishment Republicans here, but I have little doubt some of the pro-Trump Republicans are less than honest.

(Technically, the Republicans wanted to get rid of voting machines having a button where a person could push once and vote for the same party on all seats--called “straight ticket” voting. Act 77 got rid of that. But out here in reality, without going into details, both Democrats and Republicans wanted to cheat. Did I hear someone say I'm being unfair? Heh. Well, those who trust politicians will trust politicians. Just try not to be near them when you need reality thinking like in natural disasters. :) )

So the Dems managed to game the system better than the Republicans did and win. This irked the establishment Republicans, even though they were not so bothered by the outcome.

So when the Trump-supporting Republicans submitted petitions questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, they were encouraged to use a reality-premise (evidence) rather than legal-environment premise (relevant laws and rulings for this context). The establishment Republicans knew this would go nowhere, which is what they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling. But the Trump-supporting Republicans were pissed and kept taking shots.

Finally, it dawned on one group to get the 2020 election into the legal environment indirectly by getting a critical and foundational legal issue decided first.

To use an analogy based on how hierarchical knowledge works, rather than judge a Chevrolet Malibu as an isolated issue, they looked at the concept "car" and talked about that. Note that whatever gets decided that applies to "car" will also apply to the Chevrolet Malibu since it is a car.

 

The case

So rather than declare the mail-in ballots in the 2020 election as fraudulent, and rather than even talk about the 2020 election, the Republicans sued to have Act 77 declared unconstitutional.

And it is.

I mean, Pennsylvania law is about as clear as it can be in this respect and it doesn't matter that Act 77 was passed by both houses and signed by the Governor.

So the appeals court had to look at Pennsylvania law going back well over a century saying (and I paraphrase), "You can't do XXX because it is unconstitutional to do so. If you want to change this to make it constitutional you have to go through process YYY."

And Act 77? It is nothing but XXX. And Process YYY? It never happened, nobody did it.

Within the law, there is no way to wiggle out of this.

A judge who declares Act 77 as constitutional is making a public declaration of being corrupt or too inept to be a judge because he or she can't read.

Even then, two Democrat judges (out of the 5, the other three being Republicans) in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania judged this contradiction ("it exists and does not exist at the same time") to be constitutional. But they could get away with that because they knew it would not matter to the public. They were going to lose the case anyway. So they could make nice to their base by showing they voted according to party line, say, "I couldn't help it," and nobody was going to notice anyway.

However, the Pennsylvania State Supreme court, which is mostly Democrat and corrupt as all hell, is going to have to face this issue where there is no such shadow to hide in. A humongous spotlight is on them and the entire world is watching.

They are going to have to say the state law that explicitly says something is unconstitutional is constitutional to please their party and fulfill their agenda. And that's a tough sell. Especially seeing how easy this is to get to SCOTUS and get overturned.

In short, this time around the issue is within the realm of the law as primary and not within reality as primary. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.

I will be very surprised to see the appeals court decision overturned despite partisan considerations, but if that happens, I will be even more surprised to see SCOTUS agree.

 

The outcome

After all that, we can now get to the 2020 election. 

Within the realm of the law, the question is no longer about cheating. It becomes a legal issue within the law itself: If ballots based on Act 77 are unconstitutional, why were they not unconstitutional in the 2020 election? Especially since there were relevant legal people clamoring exactly this back then?

Granted, there is the issue of applying current decisions to situations that were legal previously, but I think a great case can be made that the people who passed Act 77 knew it was unconstitutional at the time, or at least intentionally ignored that standard.

And that will be the crack that will make the whole dam bust wide open all over America. Why? Within the law (as opposed to within reality), judges cite each other's decisions all the time. It's no longer a reality thing. It's a legal thing. Judges using each other's decisions as precedent goes back practically to the founding of the Supreme Court.

But this will not overturn any election yet. Within the law, this will merely declare electoral college voters, first from Pennsylvania, then from the other states, as invalid. It will grant to states the power to recall electoral college voters and annul their votes.

At a certain point, it will be, within the law, an issue that Biden did not satisfy the legal requirements to be sworn in. But another process will have to happen once it is proven that Biden's election was not in alignment with the law.

Does anyone doubt that process will happen in today's world? It will.

And we are going to nail that bastard and all those around him. People on that side are eventually going to prison.

 

In the worst possible outcome, suppose Act 77 is declared as constitutional. It's still going to be bad for the bad guys because the 2020 election issue (with a gazillion spinoffs) is now within the realm of the law as its fundament as opposed to the realm of reality. Now, evidence that obeys the requirements to get into the legal system can be presented.

So, even in this worst case, others can and will take their shots. Don't forget, there is a hell of a lot of pro-Trump legal talent out there all over America. The initial error is now fixed, the legal path is clearly demarcated, and the door is wide open.

Some might even call this the Kraken.

:) 

Michael

Your best post ever.

--Brant

  • Upvote 1
  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dinesh D'Souza has an upcoming documentary called 2000 Mules. He released the trailer to it a few days ago and I just saw it.

This is going to be fantastic.

QuR9c.4Wpjb.1.jpg
RUMBLE.COM

Watch the new teaser of my upcoming film, "2000 Mules," and go to 2000mules.com to sign up for movie updates.

Here is an accompanying article.

ballot-harvester-.jpg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

True the Vote has been working with Dinesh D’Souza to create a bombshell movie that uses footage they obtained of ballot boxes in key states across America to steal the election in 2020. 100 Percent Fed...

I gave the TGP article because they are now partnered up with True the Vote led by Catherine Engelbrecht (see here), and True the Vote is behind Dinesh's documentary, so it is only fitting to include the TGP article.

 

But an article at The Last Refuge (The Conservative Treehouse) gives a much better description of what the documentary is about.

2,000 Mules, The Background of the 2020 Election Fraud

Ballot-Mules-1.jpg
THECONSERVATIVETREEHOUSE.COM

CTH continues to be cautious with measured expectations around this story, because a thoroughly corrupt and politically compromised DOJ has possessed all of this information for almost a year. {GO DEEP}...

From the article:

Quote

No one wants to join Michael Hastings, and yet that is the scale and scope of the risk inherent within this story.  The good news is that more Americans are awake to the issues now than ever existed.  We have Donald J. Trump to thank for that.

Catherine Engelbrecht is a genuine national hero, and her organization True The Vote (TTV) will be known in history long after these decades are passed.

Note, Michael Hastings is the Rolling Stone reporter who took down General Stanley McChrystal, then had his car taken over by computer and crashed at high speed, killing him.

 

Quote

What people call “ballot traffickers” are actually ballot “mules.”

. . .

... I am 100% certain the DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland are waiting to see what is done with this evidence before they focus their targeting.

We know, to a demonstrable certainty, the political network of the Lawfare crew is also on standby against this election investigation, as well as major DNC legal operative Marc Elias who recently left Perkins Coie to set up his own shop specifically to work on this issue.  Elias took 13 lawyers and ten partners to his new firm.   That puts the DOJ, Lawfare and Elias’s new team all in alignment against Englebrecht, True the Vote and the American people.  Now, do you sense the scale of risk in this story?

. . .

... 

Big Tech and Corporate Media have been instructed to push the “domestic extremist” narrative, and any truth-tellers are considered subversive and against the interests of the U.S. government. The January 6th DC protest is being used as evidence for that narrative. Deplatforming, censorship and ultimately control of voices who would warn of the larger issues continues daily.

POINT ONE – Even before the November 2020 election, there were groups of patriots who knew mail-in ballots were a tool toward an objective – the 2020 Presidential election. Anyone with a lick of common sense, and the vast majority of readers right here on this website, knew that deployment of mail-in ballots was going to be the largest unknown variable in the 2020 election. The DC-based apparatus was all in. 2020 was the big one.

POINT TWO – There is data, massive publicly available geolocation data, available for purchase. As you know, data is the currency of the Deep State (U.S. Intel Community); however, insofar as the intel community uses federal authority to control data (at taxpayer expense), there is also a massive amount of data in the hands of private groups and individuals that can be legally purchased.

As a consumer, you know your cell phone data is used by private industry commercially to sell you stuff and provide services. That is one type of data that is available for commercial purchase. The feds have access to that type of data at their fingertips, and indeed they use it often illegally to circumvent fourth amendment protections. But that type of data is also available for purchase; the issue is the cost. Big Data requires a lot of money to purchase, and then even more money to create the technological systems to use the data effectively.

♦ Put the two points above together, and citizen led patriot groups have purchased big data to analyze the 2020 election. These projects, and there are several, have been ongoing for quite a while.

. . .

The result of that crowdsourcing research is incredibly accurate, because it is not based on supposition, it is based on empirical data points. Photographs, maps, camera shots, CCTV images, spatial and time patterns, geolocation, flight patterns, airline tracking, and even star patterns at night have been used by hobbyist puzzle solvers and citizen researchers to crowdsource information of interest. CTH has taken apart several falsely framed investigative narratives (Trayvon, Mike Brown, Freddie Gray, RNC roadmap etc) with focused crowdsourcing research. Heck, even 4Chan folks were having fun finding Shia LaBeouf’s “he will not divide us’ flag despite him hiding it in the middle of nowhere.

. . .

CTH anticipates a massive amount of pushback from the U.S. Department of Justice based solely on the findings of cell phone data that has tracked “ballot mules” via geolocation and mapping. These are ground level activists that appear to have been part of a coordinated effort to collect ballots, walk them through a process, where they were filled out in a single location, and then dropped off at collection and tabulation sites.

The bottom line is this…. AG Merrick Garland knows a powder keg could explode as soon as the majority of American people discover just how manipulated the election of 2020 was. His previous announcements to double the staff of the DOJ Civil Rights Division voter unit was not to protect election integrity, but rather to position his resources for a war against a looming storm of election review outcomes.

The deep and irrefutable research was taking place, mostly very quietly, in the background. I expect the government response to the final assembly of findings will be a combination of the DOJ/FBI “domestic extremist” narratives, combined with racism accusations, claims of election disinformation and eventually the full weaponized deployment of the DOJ and FBI against the teams who put it together.

The Alinsky model: Isolate, Ridicule and Marginalize your political opposition, in combination with the use of arrests and threats by the justice department.  …Or, they could simply use the approach they deployed against Michael Hastings.

 

Will this documentary result in legal action that will overturn the 2020 election? By itself, I doubt it. But I don't doubt that the people involved in getting to the bottom of the 2020 election fraud will run down the data in it and include that data in court pleadings.

I mean, True the Vote and Dinesh nailed the mules from legally acquired cell phone data added to satellite GPS records and surveillance video. Even video proof the mules had to make with their smart phones, sort of like selfies, in order to get paid. In one case, there is a person making 53 trips to 20 drop boxes loaded with lots of ballots each time.

Meanwhile, even though there is a virtual boycott by the mainstream news and mainstream social media of the trailer to 2000 Mules, and I expect this boycott to extend to the documentary when it is released in a few weeks or so, I think this might become something like the Canadian trucker convoy. I expect a huge impact on the public and it will eventually become too big on its own for the mainstream to ignore.

I'm looking forward to it.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Dinesh talking about it along with a link to the documentary's website.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 10:52 AM, william.scherk said:
On 1/26/2022 at 9:56 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After that first one, we all know what happens...

Sidney Powell releases The Kraken!

 

Dare we hope? Will WeTheRepublic.org ultimately succeed with their filing this coming Monday?

It's not anything to do with pending lawsuits from voting machine companies, but it seeks to overturn sanctions ruled on by Judge Linda Parker in the previously-notorious King v Whitmer case: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/172_opinion__order_King_733786_7.pdf

 

 

-- also of note, Sidney adds her flair for the dramatic on Gettr, telling her fifty thousand followers that Trudeau must go.  Who knew?

35120479a37daa3f745a41c795b7bd5c_500x0.j
WWW.GETTR.COM

DefendingTheRepublic.org supports the peaceful protests of the Canadians. Trudeau must go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Dare we hope?

William,

It's odd that the post you quoted referred to Wisconsin and the news from Sidney you mocked referred to Michigan, but after looking over things a bit, I actually think this might be the Kraken starting to emerge from the depths.

Judge Parker is a bought-and-paid-for hack who has no business on the bench. Yet there she is.

Like I said here, Sidney (and others) made the mistake of presenting evidence from reality to the courts without first making sure entry to the realm of the law was locked down tight. Reality is irrelevant to the courts if there is a way to contest the right to be in the courts.

 

Judge Parker took that thinking too far, though. She didn't say, like the others all around the country, that the plaintiffs lacked standing or that the issue was outside of legal bounds, yada yada yada. She said the attorneys themselves had no right to be in court.

And there, I believe, Parker made a huge blunder. Her ruling was chock full of references to this legal thing and that, a whole shitload of them, but her underlying premise, that a certified attorney had no right to present a petition to the court, flies in the face of everything enshrined in the law. Even proven murderers and the sleaziest people in America have a right to an attorney and a day in court.

At the end of the appeals process, regardless of where it stops, I believe something wicked will be coming Parker's way. She did not bar the reality from the courts she should have in order to toe the party line. She fucked up within the realm of the law. I do not see much forgiveness happening after the consequence of that becomes manifest to her own rulers in the backrooms.

 

And, oddly enough, this will probably give Sidney, Lin and the others their hook into the realm of the law to resubmit their complaints or new ones.  They will become formally--within the realm of the law and not just in reality--victims of abuse of power by the courts.

Even though this hook will not be a ruling on substance in an appeals court on the lack of constitutionality of a legal abomination that was perpetrated by the Pennsylvania government, as in the post I linked to, the fact that they were persecuted from the bench for performing their office as attorneys is a different form of legal abomination.

So I actually do expect Sidney to eviscerate Parker. Appeals courts are where Sidney shines. 

 

As an aside, I am on Sidney's mailing list, but I did not realize she had a Gettr account. Thanks for showing me that. I just subscribed to her.

 

And on another matter, if anyone is curious as to why she fell out of the public eye, fought with Lin Wood and others, etc., this has nothing to do with Judge Parker's silly ruling or Sidney getting her petitions about the 2020 election rejected by courts (which the mainstream press always misconstrued as her losing the cases). The problem was about money.

When Rush Limbaugh was still alive, he gave Sidney a huge endorsement and a shitload of money came into her organization from his audience. Millions of dollars.

Suddenly, everybody around her had ideas on how to spend that money. But Sidney hunkered down and started doing the work she is really really really good at--getting her ducks in a row for the appeals courts all over America. Feeding and arming the Kraken, so to speak. And she has the temper of a drill sergeant about her work. She started spending the money on that.

Since the way Sidney does it, that was too damn slow and time-consuming, and since she was cutting the hands off at the wrist of those who were groping for the pile of cash, the owners of those hands started trashing her. Human nature and all...

But like the saying goes. Nothing succeeds like success. Once she starts winning her cases again, I have little doubt all the bad feelings will dissipate. I can't say for sure about Lin since he went off on a religious war against his own side about types of prayer, who is the real righteous one, and so on. But I bet he comes back into the fold.

 

It never works out well for people who underestimate Sidney as a lawyer. She goofed when she tried to be a celebrity and meme maker. That's not her. She doesn't control that nor does she know how to play that game. That's the realm of the fake news media and of people like Trump.

She did learn how to cause a splash, but, as she also learned the hard way, what the fake news media giveth, the fake news media taketh away.

Now lets blow away some of the PR smokescreen fogging up the place. The judicial system is not public relations and propaganda. Sidney's specialty is legally remedying cases of abuse of power and she has one hell of a track record of success in that regard. Ask General Mike Flynn about her last major success against all odds.

I believe Judge Parker is going to learn a harsh lesson...

And when it's all over, I will have to hold back my own soul to keep from going overboard on the schadenfreude. 

Michael

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 5:04 PM, william.scherk said:
On 1/26/2022 at 10:52 AM, william.scherk said:

Sidney Powell releases The Kraken!

Dare we hope? Will WeTheRepublic.org ultimately succeed with their filing this coming Monday?

Here's the filing, in the case of King v Whitmer. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21199215/powell-brief-2022-02-07.pdf

One nasty lawyer with a Twitch channel regularly comments on so-called Kraken suits. Mike Dunford as @questauthority on Twitter.

Here's the start of a thread on the filing:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 4:22 PM, william.scherk said:

I'll see if there is an overlap between the losers listed in this, the official Arizona certification at the Blob -- and the alleged 'forgery': https://www.archives.gov/files/ascertainment-arizona.pdf

If you have lost the thread -- these are lists of would-be Electors that are 'elected' or certified as electors in each state after the Presidential election in a given state is completed. The fully-certified (state seal, signature of Secretary of State/Governor) Certificates are sent on to Congress and to the National Archives.

Electoral_count112_010617.jpg

Losers 'lists' are sometimes transmitted with the Certified Electors list, with the number of votes each list of Electors/Party received -- via Certificates of Attainment.

The forged/fraudulent Elector certificates are under investigation by the current committee of benghazi: 

 

-- and yes, the names on the "alternative" elector certificates overlap exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 5:04 PM, william.scherk said:

-- also of note, Sidney adds her flair for the dramatic on Gettr, telling her fifty thousand followers that Trudeau must go.  Who knew?

Sidney Powell is back in the fray, with some legal moves. From Ground.news:

webMetaImg?v=1
GROUND.NEWS

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell is suing Verizon in an attempt to block a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2022 at 10:55 AM, william.scherk said:

Mike Dunford as @questauthority on Twitter.

Mike's last dive -- he covers the legal responses filed in reaction to her Motion to Dismiss:  

 

Link to comment
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