+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 6 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: US Election: the Legal Challenge

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by apokalypse (here)
    here's an interesting list of current litigation for experts or have good knowledge out there....

    https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/
    Nice catch. Thanks.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (8th November 2020), Bill Ryan (8th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2020), Gwin Ru (10th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), Jayke (8th November 2020), kfm27917 (8th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Tintin (8th November 2020)

  3. Link to Post #22
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,268
    Thanks
    208,959
    Thanked 457,524 times in 32,788 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)

    I pause to focus for a moment on the electoral college. I'm going to bone up on that. But, it is my understanding that the electors of a state are not required by law to cast their votes in accordance with the tally of the popular vote. So, the mechanics of, and law governing, the electoral college (EC) is something that we should look into. What are the odds of the EC casting enough votes for Trump to give him the win? I do not know. It may be a long shot.
    As best I know, in theory electoral college members can do whatever they individually choose. I don't believe there are any legal restraints to 'mandate' them in any way.

    But I don't know if there are any precedents for members of the electoral college taking things into their own hands like that.

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)

    My answer is that, in my opinion, Trump would like to have the legal issues resolved (in his favor of course) before 12/14/2020, which if I recall correctly is the date the electors of the electoral college are to casts their votes. Trump would like to flip the votes in the swing states that are the subject of the voter fraud allegations so that he wins those states and the electors in the electoral college from those states also cast their votes for Trump. This would give Trump the presumptive win as a matter of fact and law and shift the burden of proof and persuasion to Biden to overturn Trump's victory.
    Another question about 12/14/2020 (or 1/20/2021!). You know from your own extensive court experience that some things simply can't properly be rushed through to fast-track a judgment.

    Some complicated disputes can drag on for years. If there's data to consider, and witnesses to testify, then all that surely takes precedence on any deadline that isn't part of the court's strict internal business.

    Is that correct? Or is there a real clock ticking here that will force the USSC to make a swift judgment, even if the process is incomplete?
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 8th November 2020 at 18:17.

  4. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Alan (8th November 2020), Alecs (8th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2020), Gwin Ru (10th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), Jayke (8th November 2020), kfm27917 (8th November 2020), kudzy (9th November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Sirus (8th November 2020), Sophocles (13th November 2020), T Smith (8th November 2020), Tintin (8th November 2020), Yoda (9th November 2020)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)

    I pause to focus for a moment on the electoral college. I'm going to bone up on that. But, it is my understanding that the electors of a state are not required by law to cast their votes in accordance with the tally of the popular vote. So, the mechanics of, and law governing, the electoral college (EC) is something that we should look into. What are the odds of the EC casting enough votes for Trump to give him the win? I do not know. It may be a long shot.
    As best I know, in theory electoral college members can do whatever they individually choose. I don't believe there are any legal restraints to 'mandate' them in any way.

    But I don't know if there are any precedents for members of the electoral college taking things into their own hands like that.

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)

    My answer is that, in my opinion, Trump would like to have the legal issues resolved (in his favor of course) before 12/14/2020, which if I recall correctly is the date the electors of the electoral college are to casts their votes. Trump would like to flip the votes in the swing states that are the subject of the voter fraud allegations so that he wins those states and the electors in the electoral college from those states also cast their votes for Trump. This would give Trump the presumptive win as a matter of fact and law and shift the burden of proof and persuasion to Biden to overturn Trump's victory.
    Another question about 12/14/2020 (or 1/20/2021!). You know from your own extensive court experience that some things simply can't properly be rushed through to fast-track a judgment.

    Some complicated disputes can drag on for years. If there's data to consider, and witnesses to testify, then all that surely takes precedence on any deadline that isn't part of the court's strict internal business.

    Is that correct? Or is there a real clock ticking here that will force the USSC to make a swift judgment, even if the process is incomplete?
    Bill, your observation about my court experience is basically accurate. Due process sets certain time tables in order to give the parties ample time to prepare and present a case. However, cases involving matters of great public importance, as the 2020 election certainly is, can be accelerated through the process and a judge has discretion and power to shorten deadlines and advance cases faster.

    It is my expectation the the federal judges will shorten deadlines and hear the issues sooner. Certainly a fair and impartial judge will do so. The lawyers and witnesses will be working hard and much midnight oil will be burned.

    I also expect the USSC to accelerate the matter on its docket and shorten deadlines. The legal challenges will be decided sooner, not later.

    Also, re the Electoral College, in post #6 above I attempted to address the question whether an elector can go “rogue” or be “unfaithful” by voting contrary to the pledge to vote in accordance with the majority popular vote of the state the Elector represents. I think the answer is “yes”, but it is not a bright line clear “yes” and the USSC has held that the elector can be sanctioned by the state for doing so. It also appears that if the elector won’t vote per the majority popular vote, either the vote will be cast for him/her or the elector can be replaced by an elector who will so vote.

    At bottom, we are in some uncharted legal territory here. Uncharted, but navigable.

    The facts of the 2020 election and the allegations of voter fraud differ from any case that we have seen before in the USA. The USSC will have to navigate through the legal morass and decide this case.

  6. The Following 26 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (8th November 2020), Alecs (8th November 2020), Bill Ryan (8th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), ClearWater (8th November 2020), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2020), edina (10th November 2020), Eric J (Viking) (8th November 2020), Franny (12th November 2020), Gwin Ru (10th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), Jayke (8th November 2020), kfm27917 (8th November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), onevoice (12th November 2020), Peace in Oz (9th November 2020), Philippe (12th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Savannah (12th November 2020), Sirus (8th November 2020), Sophocles (13th November 2020), Sue (Ayt) (8th November 2020), T Smith (8th November 2020), Tintin (12th November 2020), wondering (12th November 2020), Yoda (9th November 2020)

  7. Link to Post #24
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Project Avalon library
    Language
    English
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    64,676
    Thanked 46,606 times in 5,415 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Satori: many thanks if you can make time to have a quick listen to this. Has Shane Vaughn summed up the process correctly, in your judgment, here? (Listen up to 05:52).

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  8. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Alan (12th November 2020), Alecs (12th November 2020), Bill Ryan (12th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (12th November 2020), Franny (12th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), Philippe (12th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (12th November 2020), Savannah (12th November 2020), Sophocles (13th November 2020), Sue (Ayt) (21st November 2020)

  9. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Tintin (here)
    Satori: many thanks if you can make time to have a quick listen to this. Has Shane Vaughn summed up the process correctly, in your judgment, here? (Listen up to 05:52).

    Interestingly enough, I looked into this very question today.

    I do not disagree with anything this man said.

    Article II, Sec. I of the US Constitution originally laid out the Constitutional process for electing the President and VP when no candidate for the office of President obtained a majority of the vote of the Electors. However, Art. II Sec. I, was amended by the Twelfth Amend. That amendment lays out the process more clearly than did Art. II, Sec. I and simplified it a bit, but adhered to the intent of Art. II. Sec. I. I urge everyone who cares to read them both, but remember the Twelfth Amendment trumps Art. II, Sec. I.

    In short, if the election is not certified, the Electors cannot vote and there will thus be no majority for either candidate. The Twelfth Amd. then kicks in and each State gets one vote and the House "chooses" the President based upon the majority vote by the States. The House must "choose" as President the person who receives a majority vote of the States. This Constitutional process would also be required if the election is certified but neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral votes.

    Under the 12th Amnd, in a similar way, the Senate "chooses" the VP.

    However, if the President is not chosen by the House in the manner provided by the Constitution before January 20th (formerly March 4, but changed to January 20 by the 20th Amendment) the VP, Pence, becomes President as if in the case of death or other disability of the President. The VP remains President until the Constitutional process of choosing the President is satisfied.

    Trump has every right, and indeed the duty, to not concede under the circumstances of the 2020 election.

  10. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (12th November 2020), Alecs (12th November 2020), Bill Ryan (12th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), ClearWater (12th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2020), Ewan (19th November 2020), fifi (27th November 2020), gord (13th November 2020), Gwin Ru (15th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Savannah (12th November 2020), Sophocles (13th November 2020), Tintin (12th November 2020), TomKat (13th November 2020), wondering (12th November 2020)

  11. Link to Post #26
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Project Avalon library
    Language
    English
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    64,676
    Thanked 46,606 times in 5,415 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by Tintin (here)
    Satori: many thanks if you can make time to have a quick listen to this. Has Shane Vaughn summed up the process correctly, in your judgment, here? (Listen up to 05:52).

    Interestingly enough, I looked into this very question today.

    I do not disagree with anything this man said.

    Article II, Sec. I of the US Constitution originally laid out the Constitutional process for electing the President and VP when no candidate for the office of President obtained a majority of the vote of the Electors. However, Art. II Sec. I, was amended by the Twelfth Amend. That amendment lays out the process more clearly than did Art. II, Sec. I and simplified it a bit, but adhered to the intent of Art. II. Sec. I. I urge everyone who cares to read them both, but remember the Twelfth Amendment trumps Art. II, Sec. I.

    In short, if the election is not certified, the Electors cannot vote and there will thus be no majority for either candidate. The Twelfth Amd. then kicks in and each State gets one vote and the House "chooses" the President based upon the majority vote by the States. The House must "choose" as President the person who receives a majority vote of the States. This Constitutional process would also be required if the election is certified but neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral votes.

    Under the 12th Amnd, in a similar way, the Senate "chooses" the VP.

    However, if the President is not chosen by the House in the manner provided by the Constitution before January 20th (formerly March 4, but changed to January 20 by the 20th Amendment) the VP, Pence, becomes President as if in the case of death or other disability of the President. The VP remains President until the Constitutional process of choosing the President is satisfied.

    Trump has every right, and indeed the duty, to not concede under the circumstances of the 2020 election.
    Thanks very much Without laying claim to any legal expertise myself what he was saying seemed to make good crystal clear sense, and thank you for laying out the process - again - clearly and in an understandable way. Much appreciated.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  12. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Alecs (12th November 2020), Bill Ryan (12th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2020), gord (13th November 2020), Gwin Ru (15th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), mountain_jim (14th November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), onevoice (12th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (12th November 2020), Sophocles (13th November 2020), sunflower (14th November 2020), T Smith (14th November 2020), wondering (12th November 2020)

  13. Link to Post #27
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Project Avalon library
    Language
    English
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    64,676
    Thanked 46,606 times in 5,415 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Cross posting from the Massive Fraud thread, with thanks to Satori:

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Attached is a copy of any emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, with exhibits, filed in the United States District Court in Georgia. It is document No. 6, meaning there are 5 other documents filed before this was filed on 11/17/2020. One of which is a complaint.

    I have not read this yet.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f5gvx6oh9...ibits.PDF?dl=0
    In a nutshell, the attached Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) seeks an order from a Judge in the United States District Court, District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, enjoining (stopping) the State of Georgia from certifying the 2020 election results. The deadline to certify the vote is this Friday, 11/20/2020.

    The basis for the TRO, and the underlying complaint, is that the way Georgia counted the votes, including (and especially) mail in votes, violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Const. Georgia did this in a number of ways, including that Georgia violated its own constitution, and particularly laws passed by the Georgia Legislature governing vote counting. Further, one way Georgia violated the US Const., the Georgia Const. and the Georgia statute(s), was pursuant to a March 2020 agreement between the Democrat party and the election commission or authority of the state of Georgia. This agreement violated the voting laws of Georgia by, among other things, changing the intent of the Georgia Legislature expressed in voting statutes and failing to adhere to Georgia statutes governing elections.

    Notably, the Republican party was not invited to the table when this agreement was negotiated or entered into. It was excluded and is not a signatory to the agreement. In addition to this the parties to the "agreement" violated the agreement in connection with the recount process.

    The TRO is supported by numerous affidavits, including the affidavit, or a similar affidavit, that Sidney Powell referred to from the person who is intimately familiar with the vote and election fraud in Venezuela, and elsewhere, under Chavez et al. There is also another affidavit discussing statistical stuff re elections and typical and normal distributions of votes etc...

    The other affidavits are from GOP poll watchers who testified that they were denied the ability to participate in the hand vote recount in Georgia and describe their various experiences re how they were denied access to that process contrary to law and the "agreement."

    The motion for TRO is well-done and states a prima facie case for a TRO, but it is any bodies' guess what the judge will do.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  14. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th November 2020), BushPilot (19th November 2020), ClearWater (19th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (20th November 2020), Ewan (19th November 2020), Gwin Ru (20th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (18th November 2020)

  15. Link to Post #28
    Avalon Member Eva2's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st January 2011
    Posts
    2,600
    Thanks
    10,046
    Thanked 22,758 times in 2,555 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    This video is from yesterday so hope it hasn't already been posted on another thread. Well, "they're" just not giving up - looking like the second recount is Georgia is just as dodgy:

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Eva2 For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), Ewan (20th November 2020), Gwin Ru (20th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (20th November 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Jill (here)
    This video is from yesterday so hope it hasn't already been posted on another thread. Well, "they're" just not giving up - looking like the second recount is Georgia is just as dodgy:
    Yes indeed. And thank you for correctly calling it a recount. CiaNN called it an audit, which is false, and that the audit (sic) showed Biden won. In point of fact it was not even a recount and it was not at all an audit.

  18. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    alh02 (20th November 2020), Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (20th November 2020), Ewan (20th November 2020), Gwin Ru (20th November 2020), Icare (27th November 2020), Ioneo (20th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onevoice (20th November 2020), pueblo (20th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), scotslad (26th November 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  19. Link to Post #30
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,198
    Thanks
    9,798
    Thanked 18,247 times in 2,174 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    This is big in terms of progressing to the Supreme Court, right?


  20. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), ClearWater (21st November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (20th November 2020), Ewan (20th November 2020), Ioneo (20th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onevoice (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (20th November 2020), T Smith (22nd November 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  21. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    This is big in terms of progressing to the Supreme Court, right?

    Thanks! You beat me to it. Thus is potentially a very big deal and may portend the USSC's sense of the urgency of the matter.

    Each circuit encompasses a number of states. You can do a search to see which states fall within a circuit.

    Here's a link to the map of the circuits assigned to each Justice of the USSC:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Circuit%20Map.pdf

    Note: The legend on the bottom right corner of the map has been superseded by the 11/20/2020 USSC order posted by Pueblo.
    Last edited by Satori; 20th November 2020 at 23:15.

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), ClearWater (21st November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Ewan (20th November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), pueblo (20th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  23. Link to Post #32
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,198
    Thanks
    9,798
    Thanked 18,247 times in 2,174 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    This is big in terms of progressing to the Supreme Court, right?

    Thanks! You beat me to it. Thus is potentially a very big deal and may portend the USSC's sense of the urgency of the matter.

    Each circuit encompasses a number of states. You can do a search to see which states fall within a circuit.
    ...and revenge is a dish best served cold?


  24. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), ClearWater (21st November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onevoice (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (20th November 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  25. Link to Post #33
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    This is big in terms of progressing to the Supreme Court, right?

    Thanks! You beat me to it. Thus is potentially a very big deal and may portend the USSC's sense of the urgency of the matter.

    Each circuit encompasses a number of states. You can do a search to see which states fall within a circuit.

    Here's a link to the map of the circuits assigned to each Justice of the USSC:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Circuit%20Map.pdf

    Note: The legend on the bottom right corner of the map has been superseded by the 11/20/2020 USSC order posted by Pueblo.
    And I will just add for now that one significance of the allocations of these circuits to the Justices per the 11/20/2020 order from the USSC is that if Trump or Biden seek emergency relief from the USSC in connection with pending (or forthcoming lawsuits which will then be pending), they have to go to the Justice having jurisdiction over the circuit in which the State is situated where the lawsuit is pending. That Justice can pretty much do what he or she feels is appropriate to preserve review of the issues by the full USSC.

  26. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (20th November 2020), Ewan (20th November 2020), Gwin Ru (21st November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), pueblo (20th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), T Smith (22nd November 2020), Tintin (20th November 2020)

  27. Link to Post #34
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Project Avalon library
    Language
    English
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    64,676
    Thanked 46,606 times in 5,415 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    This is big in terms of progressing to the Supreme Court, right?

    Thanks! You beat me to it. Thus is potentially a very big deal and may portend the USSC's sense of the urgency of the matter.

    Each circuit encompasses a number of states. You can do a search to see which states fall within a circuit.

    Here's a link to the map of the circuits assigned to each Justice of the USSC:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Circuit%20Map.pdf

    Note: The legend on the bottom right corner of the map has been superseded by the 11/20/2020 USSC order posted by Pueblo.
    Great

    The pdf here

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), Eva2 (20th November 2020), Gwin Ru (21st November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onawah (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (20th November 2020)

  29. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Dark Journalist's show tonight should be relevant
    Dark Journalist X-Election: Deep State Showdown - Trump Uses JFK National Security Memo 57
    Started streaming 4 minutes ago 11/20/20
    94K subscribers

    "In this special live broadcast Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt highlights that in order for Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller to issue his order that Special Operations now must report directly to him he needed to execute the power held in the JFK National Security Action Memorandum 57 (NSAM 57) designed to bypass the CIA."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (21st November 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (21st November 2020), fifi (27th November 2020), gord (21st November 2020), greybeard (22nd November 2020), Gwin Ru (21st November 2020), Iancorgi (21st November 2020), iota (23rd November 2020), onevoice (21st November 2020), pueblo (21st November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (21st November 2020), Tintin (23rd November 2020)

  31. Link to Post #36
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,198
    Thanks
    9,798
    Thanked 18,247 times in 2,174 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Satori, I have heard someone claim that if a legal case progresses to the Supreme Court then no new evidence is allowed to be admitted...can you clarify? Thanks

  32. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd November 2020), gord (23rd November 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Tintin (23rd November 2020)

  33. Link to Post #37
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    Satori, I have heard someone claim that if a legal case progresses to the Supreme Court then no new evidence is allowed to be admitted...can you clarify? Thanks
    The USSC is not a trial court where evidence is presented in the first instance. It is an appellate court and in fact the court of final review in the USA on matters over which it has jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction over federal elections, among other things.

    All evidence must at a minimum be offered, and hopefully admitted by the judge, in the lower courts, either the state trial courts or the United States district courts. Such that by the time the case(s) gets to the USSC the parties have created an evidentiary record, and the evidence and the rulings by the trial courts thereon, can be reviewed by the USSC.

    No evidence is taken by any appellate court in the first instance.

    Hope this helps.

  34. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd November 2020), ClearWater (23rd November 2020), Ewan (23rd November 2020), gord (23rd November 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd November 2020), onevoice (23rd November 2020), pueblo (23rd November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), scotslad (26th November 2020), Tintin (23rd November 2020), Yoda (23rd November 2020)

  35. Link to Post #38
    Scotland Avalon Member scotslad's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th September 2018
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 6,028 times in 644 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Forgive me, but coming from Scotland, please bear with me as I'm trying to educate myself quickly as to how the US voting system is supposed to work in light of current events and so that I can thoroughly appreciate the efforts folks are making in contributing to this thread. Thanks in advance.

    With individual 50 states, I kinda get it that makes up 50 x mini elections?

    Do all 50 states have control of their own mini elections or is their an exception or over-ruling body?

    Each state, depending on its population vote for its representatives to appear in congress/senate.

    Out of curiosity, why is the total 538. Is there a scientific reasoning behind it?

    I understand it that the presidential candidate of the party who achieves 270 (a majority made up of their electors) is supposed to win the election.

    If there is no 270 majority what steps/processes are normally triggered?

    Apparently...

    1. "Dead" people appeared to have voted for a candidate.
    2. There is audio/video/email/documentary evidence incriminating them & their family of abusing their position
    3. The FBI (and the media) have suppressed and not acted on the evidence above
    4. More "evidence" appears to be coming to light daily.
    5. Covid appears to be "conveniently" used to exacerate mass social and economic instability by the media and
    one of the presidential candidates

    Does none of the above not get included in the "legal" case against a presidential candidate?

    This appears to be not just an injustice, it is making the usa look a laughing stock on the world stage and is fracturing the very fabric on which its supposed democracy is founded. I remember Hitler during the war believed that the bigger the lie, the easier it would be for the people to believe it...

    In a short response, whats your thoughts on how will this all end from a LAWFUL perspective - Best Scenario & Worst Scenario?

    Thankyou.

  36. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to scotslad For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th November 2020), edina (27th November 2020), gord (27th November 2020), pueblo (27th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (26th November 2020), Tintin (27th November 2020)

  37. Link to Post #39
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,057 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by scotslad (here)
    Forgive me, but coming from Scotland, please bear with me as I'm trying to educate myself quickly as to how the US voting system is supposed to work in light of current events and so that I can thoroughly appreciate the efforts folks are making in contributing to this thread. Thanks in advance.

    With individual 50 states, I kinda get it that makes up 50 x mini elections?

    Do all 50 states have control of their own mini elections or is their an exception or over-ruling body?

    Each state, depending on its population vote for its representatives to appear in congress/senate.

    Out of curiosity, why is the total 538. Is there a scientific reasoning behind it?

    I understand it that the presidential candidate of the party who achieves 270 (a majority made up of their electors) is supposed to win the election.

    If there is no 270 majority what steps/processes are normally triggered?

    Apparently...

    1. "Dead" people appeared to have voted for a candidate.
    2. There is audio/video/email/documentary evidence incriminating them & their family of abusing their position
    3. The FBI (and the media) have suppressed and not acted on the evidence above
    4. More "evidence" appears to be coming to light daily.
    5. Covid appears to be "conveniently" used to exacerate mass social and economic instability by the media and
    one of the presidential candidates

    Does none of the above not get included in the "legal" case against a presidential candidate?

    This appears to be not just an injustice, it is making the usa look a laughing stock on the world stage and is fracturing the very fabric on which its supposed democracy is founded. I remember Hitler during the war believed that the bigger the lie, the easier it would be for the people to believe it...

    In a short response, whats your thoughts on how will this all end from a LAWFUL perspective - Best Scenario & Worst Scenario?

    Thankyou.
    Good questions. I’ll give you my educated five-cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation) ASAP. For what it’s worth.

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th November 2020), gord (27th November 2020), pueblo (27th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), scotslad (26th November 2020), Tintin (27th November 2020)

  39. Link to Post #40
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Project Avalon library
    Language
    English
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    64,676
    Thanked 46,606 times in 5,415 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    King v. Whitmer (2:20-cv-13134) District Court, E.D. Michigan - Filed November 25th 2020
    Last Updated: Nov. 27, 2020, 6:09 a.m. EST

    Assigned To: Linda Vivienne Parker

    Referred To: R. Steven Whalen

    Date Filed: Nov. 25, 2020

    Docket entries Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ing-v-whitmer/

    The exhibits here towards (and including) #16 onwards include both the Ron Watkins and Russell Ramsland affidavits (Ramsland's AD has been shared before here), and, throughout, other items of extreme interest.

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  40. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    avid (27th November 2020), Bill Ryan (27th November 2020), ClearWater (27th November 2020), edina (27th November 2020), onevoice (27th November 2020), pueblo (27th November 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), scotslad (28th November 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts