So heres the line of reasoning

States unconstitutionally modified their election laws

votes MUST comply with constitutional election laws

these states doing this impacts every state

But catch that last line…

to use a metaphor, heres what the dems did with mail-in/absentee voting

They took brownie mix, and added dog crap to it. Then they baked the brownies and are telling America to eat it

That dog-crap brownie is Biden

This lawsuit recognizes that and says “throw the brownies out”

And its not like its a small amount of ballots that this was an issue with.

this was on a MASSIVE scale in EACH state. Its not like PA had a lot and MI had a little.. they ALL added dog crap to their brownies. And LOTS of it.

An additional appeal to this case for SCOTUS is that it gives them an opportunity for declaratory relief… meaning that they need to make a statement for future elections.

Boring but important.

SCOTUS has ORIGINAL jurisdiction because state courts simply cannot deal with a multi-state issue.

ALL states are the injured parties, this isn’t simply a “clean up your own room” type of issue.

Through case precedent (Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104), its very clear that the electors can only be cast by the legislature.

Even beyond that the statement is even stronger saying that it

cant be taken away (fiat)

can’t be abdicated (meaning even if they dont want to do it)

so now we get into the facts of each state, which is VERY revealing. But a little side note is that I think its interesting that @OmarnMN and MN ballot harvesting was brought up here…

Makes me think that before the end of this, this case might net her and the MN mess too

general fact establishment:

mail in and absentee voting is BIG for fraud

the defendant states made it impossible to separate the legal mail ballots with the illegal ones

each state weakened their security measures (even knowing the fraud risk)

Now lets get into each state, because obviously each state has its own election laws and therefore uniquely violated their own laws.

Starting with Pennsylvania.

You’ll see themes here with all of these states.

1) the case makes it clear that what they’re objecting to is a number that well exceeds the margin between Trump and Biden

2) a lot of “without legislative approval/unilaterally abrogated” actions taken. This by @KathyBoockvar

Remember the whole “friendly lawsuit” thing I talked about at the very start of this thread?

well heres a great example of it.

League of Women Voters of PA vs Boockvar—they get a declarative judgement that they dont need to segregate mail ballots because of signature weirdness

thats all fine and good, except that the ruling violates established PA law… actually, it violates FOUR established PA laws that expressly define signature requirements.

in effect this completely got rid of the PA statutory signature verification requirements entirely.

Additionally they make it clear that this was SPECIFICALLY TO FAVOR BIDEN

This will be emphasized in each state and more on why that is later.

The law says: ballots are due 8pm on election day

Dems (in another friendly lawsuit and 4-3 SCOPA ruling) said: deadline is extended 3 days after ED aaaaaaannnnddd

“Adopted a presumption that even non-postmarked ballots were presumptively timely.”

ok...

Read that again…

like… what the hell? Make sense now why Alito ordered these ballots to be separated? Make sense now why PA was like… “naaaahhh. If you want to throw these out you’ll have to throw out every mail ballot.”?

The law says: poll watchers to be granted access to OPENING, COUNTING, AND RECORDING of absentee ballots

Dems simply “decided not to follow [the law]” in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties

There is PLENTY of video of this on twitter

Ok, so this violation of their own law is kinda nuanced so follow me here.

Boockvar urged local election officials to contact voters to “cure” defective ballots PRIOR to the election

the issue with that is that it violates 3 separate established PA election laws

1. Mail ballots have to be sealed in locked containers until the they are canvassed. Begging the question… how did they know that signatures needed to be cured without opening the locked containers

2. Mail in ballots cannot be canvassed the way that they did it.

And

3. PA law says that the first look at the ballots (at the earliest is 7am Election Day. Any pre-canvass must be announced 48 hours in advance and then counted on Election Day

Ok what does this mean?

it means that they illegally unsealed the ballots and followed zero procedures doing so (literally didnt even try) and ONLY did this in democrat counties…

This is a verified complaint of voter favoritism.

and like I said, they mixed it all in so we cant even extract the bad

Additionally, by PA law you cant count ballots after the deadline of 8pm Election Day.

Boockvar said “well it was only 10,000”

Ok ok… cool.. except she can’t prove that seeing as how they told Alito to pound sand and didnt segregate the ballots

and now we get to the so-called “Ryan Report” which became psedo-famous after the PA legislature hearing with @RudyGiuliani and @JennaEllisEsq

Lets see the findings here

the most stunning is the 58,221 ballots returned BEFORE the mailed date

Also the 51,200 ON the mail date

the lawsuit correctly calls these numbers “nonsensical”

The total nonsensical votes is 118,426 (larger than the margin), but keep in mind that the real issue is The WHO KNOWS how many mail ballots sent out with zero signature verification.

Also odd is that between 11/2 and 11/4 the amount of mail ballots that the state had recorded sent out increased by 400k… ZERO explanation given.

anyway, getting back to their main point is this.

PA Dems totally and entirely SCREWED the whole vote by mail system and violated every established law along the way.

The lawsuit makes the correct argument that constitutionally speaking these electors cannot be used to certify

Now on to Georgia and the shady AF deals that happened there to “flip” the state blue

Spoiler: @BrianKempGA and @GaSecofState are entirely guilty of this unlawfulness.

Following the theme, @GaSecofState without legislative approval and unilaterally changed signature verification for absentee ballots….

So the big call from @realDonaldTrump is a signature audit… why wont Raff-whatever do it?

simply, whos standard do you use?

First of all they did EXACTLY what PA did. They have a law that says they CANNOT open absentee ballots until the polls open on Election Day…

Well, they (election board and SoS) adopted a random rule to start 3 weeks early… thats illegal.

More GA law: absentee voters can cure their ballot up to 3 days after the Election Day. The law says that all it takes is one clerk to do this. If the ballot was rejected, the clerk THEN must contact the voter IN WRITING to come and cure it.

ok. fair. A little cumbersome but ok

Well, enter @GaSecofState and the democrats in a wonderful “friendly lawsuit” that has now become known as “the Settlement.”

What this did was make it almost impossible to challenge a vote.

Just read 71 and get back to me on this. And yes you read that last line correctly.

And just so we are all clear, the GA legislature hasn’t ratified “the Settlement.” That makes it illegitimate BTW. Remember, thats the point of this lawsuit.

Its a backroom deal that was meant to benefit Biden and made it insanely more difficult to reject bad signatures

So thats why the rejection rate for absentee ballots went from 6.42% in 2016 to .37% in 2020….

Simply normalizing the rejection rate is well more than enough to flip the state to trump (the math is done in 76)

so now you know why @realDonaldTrump is calling for signature audit. Also how rejecting ballots were almost impossible in GA…. Its amazing to me that there were SOO many adjudicated with a .37% rejection rate of a record amount of absentee ballots… but thats a different thread.

Keep THIS in mind, however.

it isnt the number of ballots effected that matters its the fact that they used unconstitutional rules to count.

That also means that we dont have to wait on a signature audit from GA to have SCOTUS make a ruling in favor of Trump.

Now on to Michigan.. and to be honest, between Michigan and Pennsylvania, I 100% feel like the girl in this gif.

Beautifully true to form, @JocelynBenson can be added to the list of SoS’s who unilaterally changed election law without the legislature.

Fun side note is that not only has MI Legs. Not ratified her changes, but the election laws are non-severable

Lol… anyway…

of the entire group of SoS’s Benson might be the worst. But to not an IMPORTANT MI law, in 2018 the MI constitution allows for any registered voter to REQUEST and vote by mail if they desired.

But, in skeeze fashion, Benson decided she would send out 7.7m ballots to MI voters

Why?

“COVID”

And not only did they NOT make VBM more secure in MI, but this “flood Michigan with millions of ballots” strategy violated literally every aspect of a specified MI law.

Here are the 3 ways that people can apply for an absentee ballot… do you see whats NOT only that list?

<__<

>__>

@JocelynBenson deciding to just like… mail you a ballot.

Whats even crazier about that is MI law uniquely EXCLUDES her from distributing absentee ballots and delegates it to the LOCAL clerk.

As the case points out, Benson doesnt have the authority to distribute ONE absentee ballot let alone the 7.7 million + her office sent out.

But this right here was the most asinine thing that she did.

Like… theres zero possible way she didnt know she was breaking multiple MI laws in this process.

She allowed absentee ballots to be requested in MI online… WITHOUT A SIGNATURE OR VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY

WHAT?

Again remember that the lawsuit is arguing (and easily doing so) that this type of violation of law was a direct benefit for Biden and was specifically designed to do so….

back to it.

MI law says: you have to give poll watchers and inspectors ACCESS to the vote counting (access is NOT across the room btw)

MI dems in Wayne County: “made a conscious and express policy decision not to follow [the law]”

Lets play this game again

MI law says: STRICT signature verification requirements for absentee ballots (and they’re pretty good IMO)

Wayne Dems: “made the policy decision to ignore [the law]”

I want to emphasize “POLICY DECISION” and again, this materially benefited Biden

This is more of an interesting note: the lawsuit specifically utilizes Jesse Jacob’s testimony/affidavit.

why?

Because she highlights that it was a TRAINED POLICY DECISION on how to count the votes at TCF center (the only place counting in Detroit)

Once again, staying close to home on the lawsuit: these were non-legislative “modifications” (unconstitutional)

alright… now hold on because the next stuff I had to read slowly to fully absorb it..

Absentee ballots have registration numbers to track them back to voters.

31% of the absentee ballots that were counted in Wayne DID NOT HAVE REGISTRATION NUMBERS

That 31% ALONE exceeds the vote margin and is evidence that these ballots were counted MULTIPLE TIMES.

this was, per the last sentence

WITHOUT EXPLANATION

And of course, we don’t fully know because republican poll watchers were booted from the room (illegally)

and again, the issue isnt the number of votes, the issue is the rule that was followed. That alone tosses the state

And now we get to Wisconsin…. This one is the state I personally found the most interesting.

the reason why is that WI has EXCELLENT election laws. And the democrats followed approximately ZERO of them.

Fun facts for WI

1) this is the only state that the SoS didn’t get thrown to the wolves in this lawsuit

And

2) from 2016-2020 VBM increased by 900%

The main law that the case is targeting is this one.

Specifically that WI law is SUUUUPER specific about all drop-off locations for absentee ballots must be staffed by a person..

but someone must not have told the mayors of WI’s five largest cities this because what did they do?

They put out an insane amount of unmanned drop-boxes.

how many?

Somewhere in the ballpark of 500.

but the funny story of this isn’t the fact that they violated the law with UNMANNED drop boxes… they violated the law with ANY drop boxes

WI law specifically PRECLUDES the use of drop boxes at all, requiring ballots to be dropped off with the municipal clerk (or similar)

Seriously though… WI law does NOT mess around with their laws about drop-boxes.

like… just read these…

So not only is there a law that says “unmanned drop boxes are NOT permitted,” they went a step further and said that “any ballot mailed or delivered via drop box is not to be counted.”

And just in case you didn’t think they were serious about that, they made an entirely SEPARATE las that says “we meant it. This is mandatory.”

AND

Ballots cast this way wont be used in the certification process of ANY election

This is a re-post screen shot of a few tweets back but I just want to remind you all that IN THE FACE OF ALL THAT….

the mayors of the five largest WI cities STILL decided that drop-boxes would be ok….

Thats enough right? Pack it up, go home?

wrong! Apparently the drop-box nonsense was to passive for WI dems so they decided to play the “COVID” card as well..

How? Some called “indefinite confinement” (which I’ll call IC)

IC is if you are either very old, very sick, or disabled. The WI law specifies this…

if you are IC then you dont have to show ID to get an absentee ballot (see where this is going?)

well.. the WI election committee actively encouraged EVERYONE to declare IC because of COVID

They had elected officials and county clerks of Dane and Milwaukee county telling people to do this.

WI GOP saw this and brought it to court

SCOWI UNANIMOUSLY said that “no”

So they stopped but they also refused to remove the people already declared IC (thats March-May)

that is ALSO in violation of WI voting laws saying that if people are no longer IC they have to tell the clerk… well the WEC wouldnt let that happen..

But come on… how many people could that be? They did that for 3 months!

how about 216000 voters (up from 57k in 2016)

Let me put that differently.

thats 216,000 voters that did not have to go through any of the normal security for voting… including showing ID, or even a signature verification. (The margin is just over 20,000 for Biden)

But WI had MORE laws around absentee voting… democrats were SUPER determined to rig this state apparently.

those laws come in the form of address verification that has to be essentially notarized saying “I live here, this is my address.” The witness ALSO needs an address on it

So what did they do?

well the Milwaukee Election Commission was SOOOO nice that if there wasn’t a witness address, they (through I assume some sort of magic) found the witnesses address on behalf of the voter and filled out he missing info in red pen….

I’ll repeat that…

If the absentee ballot was missing the proper witness information to make it a LEGAL vote… they were going around ADDING the legal information so that they could count the vote.

I probably dont need to say this, but that is against WI election law… if a ballot is returned with incomplete certification they may return the ballot to fix it or it doesnt count…

oh… and this is in multiple witness affidavits that they saw this practice happening.

And again, just a reminder...

this is NOT ratified by the WI legislature and their election laws aren’t severable either.

So like… idk what WI dems were expecting was going to happen..

BUT WE ARENT DONE WITH WISCONSIN

Because now we have the testimony of Ethan Pease who was a driver for USPS.

he testifies that USPS workers were backdating ballots and were being told by supervisors to do so.

And just to add an additional thing to this… Pease testifies that on 11/4 (the day after Election Day) his supervisor told him that 100k ballots were “missing.”

Somehow, someway, those ballots were found and then Biden ended up with a 20,565 vote margin of victory

amazing.

Well no we get into the counts.. I’m debating on going to bed and picking up again tomorrow morning or just powering through, but either way, here’s a gif of how this is basically turning out.

alright… lets finish this guy up, because we’re in the home stretch of it.

Count 1 is the Electors clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which pretty clearly states that the state legislatures make the laws around elections.

And remember, this is the main crux of the case. Each of these states had an executive(s) who either changed the laws around ballot counting and signature verification OR different groups arbitrarily started to use rules the legislature did not pass… well thats an issue…

it can’t get any more clear on the matter than Bush v Gore (2000) which reaffirmed that non-legislative actors don’t have the authority to amend or nullify election laws…

which… each state/executive did…like this isn’t even a question. They did this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

But to make it even MORE clear, there is an additional case that set precedent for this. Heckler v Chaney (1985) which goes so far to say that ANY conscious action by the executive to “nullify or ignore requirements of election statutes violates the Electors Clause..”

Whats more is that because the Electors Clause was violated it means that any electors appointed are constitutionally invalid.

another reason why “Safe Harbor Day” means nothing.

The Electors Clause violation might be the most important part of this case because its main point is to maintain a separation of powers. IMO this is pretty easy and is backed up by good precedent.

In a sane world this should be a 9-0 decision in favor of the plaintiffs

And this is a reason to take heart. What was the pre-text that the state level executives did all of this?

COVID.

Meaning that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs not only is great for the election but it also reigns in the fiat power of governors to not do things like… close business… close churches… require masks… and any other of these insane things that have come out of the virus

Again referencing what I put waaayyy earlier in the thread.

1) watch the Alito address if you haven’t

2) read the SCOTUS decision on religious liberties from Cali and NY, both ruling in favor of the Constitution

I expect THIS ruling to be the same 5-4 or 6-3 for plaintiffs

Count II: Equal Protections

The standards cannot be different for tabulation within the states and MUST meet established legal requirements (meaning the legislature decided requirements)

This is also good precedent set in Bush v. Gore

Precedent also requires only counting valid votes and discarding invalid votes with a “one-person, one-vote” principle.

Remember how I was showing you where the case kept repeating that it “materially benefits Biden”? This is part of why that’s important.

Not only is equal protections an argument to be made WITHIN the states (cure-ing in D counties but not R) but it also is an argument for the entire county defining federal elections as a “shared enterprise.”

These states are disenfranchising every state that followed the law

From my reading of this, it seems that if the Electors Clause is upheld, SCOTUS will likely agree with the Equal Protection part of the lawsuit.

Count III: Due Process, which from what I’m seeing in the lawsuit is backed and supported by the MOST case precedent.

Literally everything NOT highlighted is a case that has precedent.

and this isnt rocket-science.

An intentional failure or refusal to follow their own legislatively selected election laws.

thats due process. Established rules are followed and everyone gets a fair shake.

ANOTHER big ruling for separation of powers, especially because the excuse to circumvent due process (just like the Electors Clause) was because of COVID.

In an ideal world, Due Process would be rigorously followed with little executive fiat.

I expect the court to uphold that

The case concludes with the accusation that not only did the defendant states NOT follow due process (using COVID as cover) but they did this with the express intent of getting Biden elected

Evidence of fraud will prove bad faith on the states part and this will be found TRUE

Like any lawsuit, they ask for relief from the courts, and most of them are pretty standard.

The short version of it is “declare our case to be correct, order defendant states to appoint new electors or no electors at all.”

AND THATS IT! I know that as of right now, Trump has filed to intervene, which makes sense.

He may or may not be granted that and in the end I’m not sure if it matters one way or another if he is or not.

Again, this is a layup case. Should be 9-0 but will likely be 5-4 or 6-3

Addendum:

Don’t be surprised if/when other lawsuits in states move to withdraw.

With this case active, there isnt a point to have multiple splintered lawsuits across all of these states.