• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"38.



Excluding the 627 ballots subject to the order issued by Justice Alito of the U.S.Supreme Court as discussed below, each of the remaining challenged ballots in the instant Petitionwas timely received by Defendant before 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.39.



Petitioners challenged all ballots received after 8:00 p.m., on the Tuesday November 3, 2020, which were set aside and separated into five (5) categories as follows: (1)Ballots Postmarked November 3rd or earlier; (2) Ballots with Illegible Postmarks; (3) Ballots with No Postmark; (4) Ballots Postmarked after November 3rd; and (5) Miscellaneous.40.



The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in

Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar

, No. 133MM 2020, 2020 WL 5554644, (Pa. Sept. 17, 2020) held that all mail-in ballots which were postmarked on or prior to November 3, 2020, or that did not bear a postmark, and were receivedon November 3, 2020 after 8:00 p.m. and before 5:00 p.m. on Friday November 6, 2020, must becounted.41.



Defendant found that 627 ballots received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020must be counted under this decision. 42.



Defendant determined all other ballots received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3,2020 could not be canvassed under the above-referenced Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision.43.


The court must deny Petitioners challenge to the 627 ballots received after 8:00 p.m., on November 3, 2020 due to the current Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. However,all parties agree that Defendant must segregate and canvass these ballots in a manner compliantwith the United States Supreme Court Order of Justice Samuel Alito."
Click to expand...
Yes, as I stated "all".
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"38.

Excluding the 627 ballots subject to the order issued by Justice Alito of the U.S.Supreme Court as discussed below, each of the remaining challenged ballots in the instant Petitionwas timely received by Defendant before 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.39.
Click to expand...

Wow, it almost looks like, if some ballots are excluded from a general statement, then those ballots have to be specifically stated as having been excluded. What, then, could we read into the fact that 27 refers to "the challenged ballots" without specifying any exclusions?

Dave
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"38.

Excluding the 627 ballots subject to the order issued by Justice Alito of the U.S.Supreme Court as discussed below, each of the remaining challenged ballots in the instant Petitionwas timely received by Defendant before 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.39.

Petitioners challenged all ballots received after 8:00 p.m., on the Tuesday November 3, 2020, which were set aside and separated into five (5) categories as follows: (1)Ballots Postmarked November 3rd or earlier; (2) Ballots with Illegible Postmarks; (3) Ballots with No Postmark; (4) Ballots Postmarked after November 3rd; and (5) Miscellaneous.40.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar
, No. 133MM 2020, 2020 WL 5554644, (Pa. Sept. 17, 2020) held that all mail-in ballots which were postmarked on or prior to November 3, 2020, or that did not bear a postmark, and were receivedon November 3, 2020 after 8:00 p.m. and before 5:00 p.m. on Friday November 6, 2020, must becounted.41.

Defendant found that 627 ballots received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020must be counted under this decision. 42.

Defendant determined all other ballots received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3,2020 could not be canvassed under the above-referenced Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision.43.
The court must deny Petitioners challenge to the 627 ballots received after 8:00 p.m., on November 3, 2020 due to the current Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. However,all parties agree that Defendant must segregate and canvass these ballots in a manner compliantwith the United States Supreme Court Order of Justice Samuel Alito."
Click to expand...

So, no fraud.
 
Foggy of the Fogbow said:
Actually, I can get the phone number and location of any number of evangelical churches in my area. They're very public.

But there's no phone number, no location, and no website for any Antifa group in my area. Or in any area, really.

If you have access to that information, please share. I live in North Raleigh, NC.
Click to expand...

If you are looking for offices and secretaries, you will indeed be frustrated.

When antifa rose to national awareness, I found their local contacts via Twitter and blogs. Took me all of three or four minutes with ye olde Google. In NJ, I found the central organization was Phillyantifa, in the nearby state of Pennsylvania. They had current information on skinhead members that were active in my area for decades, even pictures of their houses that were two miles from my own, and I was able to contact straggler members of the anarchist group I hung out with a generation ago, still kicking.

No storefronts or offices, but not purely disorganized either. Something in between.
 
Dave Rogers said:
(1) Darat's post, not mine.
(2) It's a straight quote from the filing.
(3) Come on, you can't be serious if you think "Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots" really means "Petitioners allege that there is evidence of fraud but not with all of the challenged ballots."

Anyone impartial might think you've been caught lying and you're desperately trying to reverse the meaning of a perfectly clear sentence to cover it up.

Dave
Click to expand...
1.Yes it was in response to your answer to Darat's quoted content.
2. Yes it is a straight quote from the filing. Yet there was more under that quote describing other ballots specifically tied to the PA case now in SCOTUS. It's no surprise some news outlets would tend to shape the narrative and from the appearance here it worked.
3. The fraud is the fact that PA changed the election laws by other means than their Legislature. That's why we have some ballots in dispute.

I mean come on, do you really think I'm making it up.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I mean come on, do you really think I'm making it up.
Click to expand...

When you say that biased left-wing sources are claiming that "There is no evidence of fraud" means "there is no evidence of fraud," whereas you claim that your interpretation that "there is no evidence of fraud" means "there is evidence of fraud" is completely factual and unbiased? I don't think you're making it up, no. It's totally obvious that you're making it up.

Dave
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
1.Yes it was in response to your answer to Darat's quoted content.

2. Yes it is a straight quote from the filing. Yet there was more under that quote describing other ballots specifically tied to the PA case now in SCOTUS. It's no surprise some news outlets would tend to shape the narrative and from the appearance here it worked.

3. The fraud is the fact that PA changed the election laws by other means than their Legislature. That's why we have some ballots in dispute.



I mean come on, do you really think I'm making it up.
Click to expand...
That is not the definition of fraud, the definition of fraud is the one the plaintiff's said there was no evidence to support.
 
Elagabalus said:
Well, there is this.

'Call his bluff': Edward Norton lays out poker-style Trump analysis we never expected

Trying to cut a deal?
Click to expand...

I don't follow his argument. I agree with his first assertion that the actions by Trump are, in part, "a tactical delay of the transition to buy time for coverup & evidence suppression."

But I don't get how Trump's actions a "Nixon-style deal in exchange for finally conceding." It seems he is saying that Trump is doing all this to force Biden to give him a pardon in exchange for conceding. I guess.

But Trump could pardon himself. Or resign or temporarily step out of office under the 25th amendment and have Acting President Pence grant him a pardon.

And Trump, to my knowledge, has not been suggesting that Biden promise a pardon. And Trump broadcasts his intentions and demands well in advance. So this seems unlikely.

I find this hypothesis to be without merit.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
But Trump could pardon himself.
Click to expand...

Constitutional scholars seem to be debating that one, and there's by no means a consensus that it would be valid. And does Trump want to trust the Supreme Court to uphold his self-pardon once it's too late to try anything else?

DevilsAdvocate said:
Or resign or temporarily step out of office under the 25th amendment and have Acting President Pence grant him a pardon.
Click to expand...

And does he trust Pence not to stab him in the back? A promise of a pardon from Biden while he's still President would be very much more secure than the hope of Pence or the SCOTUS deferring to him once he isn't.

DevilsAdvocate said:
And Trump, to my knowledge, has not been suggesting that Biden promise a pardon.
Click to expand...

If he did that, his intentions would immediately become obvious; he'd be calling his own bluff.

Dave
 
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Number: 20-3371

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...o-Expedite.pdf

"5. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF 172-2) asserts
claims under the Civil Rights Act for violation of the Equal Protection and Due
Process clauses because Defendants, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and
seven County Boards of Elections, controlled by Democrats, engaged in an
intentional scheme to count defective mail ballots which they knew would favor
Joseph Biden over Presidential Donald J. Trump. In Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873
(3d Cir. 1994), on remand, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5273 (E.D. Pa. April 26, 1994),
this Court held such a scheme violates Equal Protection and Due Process and
affirmed the decertification of candidate Stinson and the certification of Marks by
disallowing illegal absentee ballots. Similarly, Appellants seek to exclude the
defective mail ballots which overwhelming favored Biden, which may turn the
result of the Election. Appellants do not seek to exclude any legally cast votes. "

I would say "I told you so." but it speaks for itself.
 
That doesn't actually allege fraud. It alleges that ballots which had been filled in improperly but in good faith were accepted but shouldn't have been. If in fact it was legal to count the challenged ballots, which has yet to be determined, then it's irrelevant who expected them to favour whom.

Dave
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Number: 20-3371

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...o-Expedite.pdf

"5. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF 172-2) asserts
claims under the Civil Rights Act for violation of the Equal Protection and Due
Process clauses because Defendants, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and
seven County Boards of Elections, controlled by Democrats, engaged in an
intentional scheme to count defective mail ballots which they knew would favor
Joseph Biden over Presidential Donald J. Trump. In Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873
(3d Cir. 1994), on remand, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5273 (E.D. Pa. April 26, 1994),
this Court held such a scheme violates Equal Protection and Due Process and
affirmed the decertification of candidate Stinson and the certification of Marks by
disallowing illegal absentee ballots. Similarly, Appellants seek to exclude the
defective mail ballots which overwhelming favored Biden, which may turn the
result of the Election. Appellants do not seek to exclude any legally cast votes. "

I would say "I told you so." but it speaks for itself.
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see something in external reality to support the appellants allegations that any of this **** happened.
 
Dave Rogers said:
(1) Darat's post, not mine.
(2) It's a straight quote from the filing.
(3) Come on, you can't be serious if you think "Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots" really means "Petitioners allege that there is evidence of fraud but not with all of the challenged ballots."

Anyone impartial might think you've been caught lying and you're desperately trying to reverse the meaning of a perfectly clear sentence to cover it up.

Dave
Click to expand...

You do ignore one possibility: there is fraud in the ballots they are not challenging.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That doesn't actually allege fraud. It alleges that ballots which had been filled in improperly but in good faith were accepted but shouldn't have been. If in fact it was legal to count the challenged ballots, which has yet to be determined, then it's irrelevant who expected them to favour whom.
Click to expand...

Whenever anyone screams "Widespread Fraud" but can only point at minor cases of a complex system just have tiny, insignificant, within the margin of error mistakes, you can go ahead and pencil in a "10" on the B.S Meter on their character sheet.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
1.Yes it was in response to your answer to Darat's quoted content.
2. Yes it is a straight quote from the filing. Yet there was more under that quote describing other ballots specifically tied to the PA case now in SCOTUS. It's no surprise some news outlets would tend to shape the narrative and from the appearance here it worked.
3. The fraud is the fact that PA changed the election laws by other means than their Legislature. That's why we have some ballots in dispute.

I mean come on, do you really think I'm making it up.
Click to expand...

I think you are using the word "fraud" for something that is not fraudulent, nor is even alleged to be fraudulent.

Your item number 3 above does not describe fraud, and the lawyers are not calling it fraud nor asking for a finding of fraud. Fraud just isn't part of the case.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Number: 20-3371

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...o-Expedite.pdf

"5. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF 172-2) asserts
claims under the Civil Rights Act for violation of the Equal Protection and Due
Process clauses because Defendants, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and
seven County Boards of Elections, controlled by Democrats, engaged in an
intentional scheme to count defective mail ballots which they knew would favor
Joseph Biden over Presidential Donald J. Trump. In Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873
(3d Cir. 1994), on remand, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5273 (E.D. Pa. April 26, 1994),
this Court held such a scheme violates Equal Protection and Due Process and
affirmed the decertification of candidate Stinson and the certification of Marks by
disallowing illegal absentee ballots. Similarly, Appellants seek to exclude the
defective mail ballots which overwhelming favored Biden, which may turn the
result of the Election. Appellants do not seek to exclude any legally cast votes. "

I would say "I told you so." but it speaks for itself.
Click to expand...


Presumably you realise that this is the claim by the pursuer, not the respondent or the decision of the court?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom