Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Massive Voter Fraud


Cookie Monster
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Act 77 is illegal in PA, no one is really arguing that it isnt besides you, what the courts are ruling is that the challenge coming after the election is too late.  The only way act 77 would be legal is if the PA constitution was amended which was started but stalled out around halfway through and was never finished so act 77 does violate the PA constitution and thus illegal.  In the mid term election in 2 years dont be expecting anymore no reason mail in ballots.

In another thread I already showed how not requiring signature matching for mail in ballots but in person ballots violated equal protection. 

Besides from that there was the ballot cureing issue, essentially in some counties any error in a mail in ballot caused it to be discarded outright, in some counties people were notified on election day of the issue and given the chance to fix it, and in other counties mail in ballots were checked as received and people given days or weeks notice to fix the issue.

I vote in person in PA, and my signature isn't matched.  How exactly is act 77 illegal?  It was voted on by Democrats and Republicans, and to disenfranchise 7 million voters due to a law that was a bipartisan issue would be the most anti-American thing ever.  Now, as far as the ballot "cureing" or curing issue...Pennsylvania law does not disallow the curing of ballots.  The counties that DID NOT allow it should be punished.  In my opinion, the RED COUNTIES not allowing ballot curing on mail in ballots as allowed by law should be taken to court.  There has not been a single ballot cast in person that has been tossed due to signature, and not a single mail in ballot tossed due to signature.  That's about as equal as it gets, fella.

Edited by Agent0range
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I vote in person in PA, and my signature isn't matched.  How exactly is act 77 illegal?  It was voted on by Democrats and Republicans, and to disenfranchise 7 million voters due to a law that was a bipartisan issue would be the most anti-American thing ever.  Now, as far as the ballot "cureing" or curing issue...Pennsylvania law does not disallow the curing of ballots.  The counties that DID NOT allow it should be punished.  In my opinion, the RED COUNTIES not allowing ballot curing on mail in ballots as allowed by law should be taken to court.  There has not been a single ballot cast in person that has been tossed due to signature, and not a single mail in ballot tossed due to signature.  That's about as equal as it gets, fella.

I vote in PA also and your signature is matched.  Apparently it was this thread but since you didnt read it last time, from the PA election code

Article XII

Section 1203

Voter's Certificates.--At each primary and election each county board shall prepare a suitable number of voter's certificates which shall be in form approved by the Secretary of the Commonwealth substantially as follows: Voter's Certificate
(Primary)(Election)......................19......
I here by certify that I am qualified to vote at this (primary)(election)
Signature........................................
Address...........................................

Section 1210 (2)

Such election officer shall there upon announce the elector's name so that it may be heard by all members of the election board and by all watchers present in the polling place and shall compare the elector's signature on his voter's certificate with his signature in the district register. If, upon such comparison, the signature upon the voter's certificate appears to be genuine, the elector who has signed the certificate shall, if other wise qualified, be permitted to vote: Provided, That if the signature on the voter's certificate, as compared with the signature as recorded in the district register, shall not be deemed authentic by any of the election officers, such elector shall not be denied the right to vote for that reason, but shall be considered challenged as to  identity and required to make the affidavit and produce the evidence as provided in subsection(d) of this section.

The thing you sign when you go to vote in person is your signature match and if it doesnt match the vote can be challenged and thrown out.  While rare it can happen but since that requirement was thrown out for mail in ballots entirely in person and mail in do have different security measures.

As for act 77 being illegal the PA constitution specifically mentions and puts strict limits on mail in ballots.  It doesnt matter if the law was voted on and passed or not as the law itself violates the constitution of PA.  Since the amendment that would of made the law legal was never completed act 77 is illegal.  Just like in the federal government, if a law is passed even if done completely legally if it violates the constitution it's still illegal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

I vote in PA also and your signature is matched.  Apparently it was this thread but since you didnt read it last time, from the PA election code

Article XII

Section 1203

Voter's Certificates.--At each primary and election each county board shall prepare a suitable number of voter's certificates which shall be in form approved by the Secretary of the Commonwealth substantially as follows: Voter's Certificate
(Primary)(Election)......................19......
I here by certify that I am qualified to vote at this (primary)(election)
Signature........................................
Address...........................................

Section 1210 (2)

Such election officer shall there upon announce the elector's name so that it may be heard by all members of the election board and by all watchers present in the polling place and shall compare the elector's signature on his voter's certificate with his signature in the district register. If, upon such comparison, the signature upon the voter's certificate appears to be genuine, the elector who has signed the certificate shall, if other wise qualified, be permitted to vote: Provided, That if the signature on the voter's certificate, as compared with the signature as recorded in the district register, shall not be deemed authentic by any of the election officers, such elector shall not be denied the right to vote for that reason, but shall be considered challenged as to  identity and required to make the affidavit and produce the evidence as provided in subsection(d) of this section.

The thing you sign when you go to vote in person is your signature match and if it doesnt match the vote can be challenged and thrown out.  While rare it can happen but since that requirement was thrown out for mail in ballots entirely in person and mail in do have different security measures.

As for act 77 being illegal the PA constitution specifically mentions and puts strict limits on mail in ballots.  It doesnt matter if the law was voted on and passed or not as the law itself violates the constitution of PA.  Since the amendment that would of made the law legal was never completed act 77 is illegal.  Just like in the federal government, if a law is passed even if done completely legally if it violates the constitution it's still illegal.

How many in person votes were discarded due to signature?  How many mail in votes were discarded due to signature?  I'm gonna guess zero on both fronts, meaning equal treatment.  Can you link the part of the PA constitution that limits mail in voting?  And if it does limit, there are rulings from the Supreme Court that mention the will of the voter.  7 million people voted in a way that was, or they thought was legal, and to dismiss the will of the voter would be a violation of United States Constitution which, no pun intended, TRUMPS the State Constitution.  Now, can you show me where the PA constitution limits mail in voting?  And if you can, how can hundreds of State Representatives not realize this until a year later?  Are the April elections now no good as well?  Boy I hope so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

How many in person votes were discarded due to signature?  How many mail in votes were discarded due to signature?  I'm gonna guess zero on both fronts, meaning equal treatment.  Can you link the part of the PA constitution that limits mail in voting?  And if it does limit, there are rulings from the Supreme Court that mention the will of the voter.  7 million people voted in a way that was, or they thought was legal, and to dismiss the will of the voter would be a violation of United States Constitution which, no pun intended, TRUMPS the State Constitution.  Now, can you show me where the PA constitution limits mail in voting?  And if you can, how can hundreds of State Representatives not realize this until a year later?  Are the April elections now no good as well?  Boy I hope so.

The amount of discarded ballots over matching signatures doesn't matter, all that matters is that one type of ballot required it while another didnt which is treating ballots differently by subjecting them to different security requirements.  Your argument is essentially the equivalent of saying since no one has robbed a bank then no stores have been robbed so robbery doesnt happen.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7&sctn=14&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress

§ 14.  Absentee voting.
        (a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
     in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
     who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
     municipality of their residence, because their duties,
     occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
     the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
     proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
     or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
     of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
     day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
     the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
     in which they respectively reside.
        (b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
     city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
     general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
     General Assembly.
     (Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
     Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

        1967 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
     section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
     former section 19 to present section 14.
        1957 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
     14 (formerly section 19).

As for will of the voter that gets complicated very quickly.  Approximately 2.5 million people cast ballots they thought were legal but were actually illegal, not counting them will disenfranchise them but it can be argued counting those ballots disenfranchises the approximate 4.2 million who cast legal ballots.  Then since this was national it can then be argued on a national level with the close to 150 million people who voted.  It gets very complicated and very ugly very quickly.

As for the state legislature not realizing it, they did realize it.  They knew the moment the amendment process failed that it was illegal.  My guess is it was cowardice.  If I remember correctly shortly after act 77 was passed was when the coronavirus was starting to hit America.  My guess is they probably were going to fight it but backed off over concerns doing so might cost them reelection by allowing the Democrats to paint them as uncaring about the dangers of the coronavirus.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The amount of discarded ballots over matching signatures doesn't matter, all that matters is that one type of ballot required it while another didnt which is treating ballots differently by subjecting them to different security requirements.  Your argument is essentially the equivalent of saying since no one has robbed a bank then no stores have been robbed so robbery doesnt happen.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7&sctn=14&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress


§ 14.  Absentee voting.
        (a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
     in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
     who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
     municipality of their residence, because their duties,
     occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
     the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
     proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
     or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
     of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
     day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
     the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
     in which they respectively reside.
        (b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
     city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
     general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
     General Assembly.
     (Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
     Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

        1967 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
     section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
     former section 19 to present section 14.
        1957 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
     14 (formerly section 19).

As for will of the voter that gets complicated very quickly.  Approximately 2.5 million people cast ballots they thought were legal but were actually illegal, not counting them will disenfranchise them but it can be argued counting those ballots disenfranchises the approximate 4.2 million who cast legal ballots.  Then since this was national it can then be argued on a national level with the close to 150 million people who voted.  It gets very complicated and very ugly very quickly.

As for the state legislature not realizing it, they did realize it.  They knew the moment the amendment process failed that it was illegal.  My guess is it was cowardice.  If I remember correctly shortly after act 77 was passed was when the coronavirus was starting to hit America.  My guess is they probably were going to fight it but backed off over concerns doing so might cost them reelection by allowing the Democrats to paint them as uncaring about the dangers of the coronavirus.

When corona hit Trump is on video talking what they were planning with free for all ballots 

:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2020 at 8:25 PM, spartan max2 said:

Docketing is just part of the process. It could still get ignored like most of the lawsuits that try to go to the SC.

But we shall see. 

I think the issue that sets this case apart from all those previously filed is that when one State sues for relief against OTHER STATES, SCOTUS is the first step, there is no path through other state's courts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

How, exactly is that unconstitutional? 

Hey, it's YOUR constitution.  It does seem kind of backasswards but the bottom line is that Republicans voted for the changes but even though it passed, the changes they brought were not constitutional in PA.  I don't understand it well enough to argue over it.  Even if that issue is struck, there's still the matter of 2.4 million ballots that were mailed in and the cover envelopes were trashed without observers.  Additionally, Pa and the other 3 states definitely made changes in how they handled ballots that violated the Equal Protection Clause.  

https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-launch-pennsylvania-lawsuit-argues-201911619.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RAyMO said:

care to elaborate? not seeing anything new - if you are referring to Texan lawsuit led by a guy allegedly looking to get a pardon - I was aware of that. - it will be ditched. 

Maybe you should do a little research.  This situation is unlike all the others previously ruled on.  A state is suing another state and SCOTUS is the first court, not an appeal court.  If the Texas AG broke laws and is tried and convicted, he'll be held accountable.  That has ZERO to do with his lawsuit.  And about 17 other states agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, President-Elect Acidhead said:

When corona hit Trump is on video talking what they were planning with free for all ballots 

:D

We've been saying this would be a train wreck for months and they did it anyway.  If it blows up on them, oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, and then said:

We've been saying this would be a train wreck for months and they did it anyway.  If it blows up on them, oh well...

It will be patient

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RAyMO said:

care to elaborate? not seeing anything new - if you are referring to Texan lawsuit led by a guy allegedly looking to get a pardon - I was aware of that. - it will be ditched. 

Yeah, i had to look it up hide.gif.b2264483c8b95b61626aa8e30b9e660a.gif

The paxton fellow is or was in all kinds of hot water, a pardon would be a sweet fit for him :tu:

You are savvy because top law talking people of Texas say its a nothing burger too, at tax payers expense.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-ag-ken-paxton-under-fire-wasting-taxpayer-money-2020-election-lawsuit-1553653?amp=1

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/two-biggest-problems-texas-ag-s-anti-election-lawsuit-n1250385

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/legal-expert-troubled-by-ken-paxtons-preposterous-lawsuit-against-battleground-states/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

Maybe you should do a little research.  This situation is unlike all the others previously ruled on.  A state is suing another state and SCOTUS is the first court, not an appeal court.  If the Texas AG broke laws and is tried and convicted, he'll be held accountable.  That has ZERO to do with his lawsuit.  And about 17 other states agree.

I have done research - there are multiple reasons this will be ditched.

It may even be ditched without consideration as the states seemingly lack standing to appeal

If it is considered its requested remedy - scrapping the election results will be ditched - not appropriate 

or the SC will find that individual states are responsible for their own election laws

or that the states are too late - they knew of the changes to state laws months ago - decided to do nothing until the election results were known and not favourable to them. 

or .....

Its a 'Hail Mary' with undertones of Mr President give me a pardon please. 

Edited by RAyMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

It may even be ditched without consideration as the states seemingly lack standing to appeal

This is not an appeal.  This is the state of Texas suing 4 battleground states for unconstitutional changes to their times, places or manner of voting.  Additionally, Texas and the other states are saying that these 4 states violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  The individual states are, indeed responsible for their electoral system.  But it is only the state legislature that can make those changes.  If I understand the issue in PA, it's that while their legislators DID make changes last year for mail-in voting, the changes they made were in conflict with the PA Constitution.  Pretty sure that even a majority of legislators cannot amend the Constitution in such a manner.

Hopefully, this will be finished in time for Trump to still plan his second inaugural ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

A patient train-wreck?

trainwreck.gif.cc03cf993a6b47721fe230e601bc4df6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

Yeah, i had to look it up hide.gif.b2264483c8b95b61626aa8e30b9e660a.gif

The paxton fellow is or was in all kinds of hot water, a pardon would be a sweet fit for him :tu:

You are savvy because top law talking people of Texas say its a nothing burger too, at tax payers expense.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-ag-ken-paxton-under-fire-wasting-taxpayer-money-2020-election-lawsuit-1553653?amp=1

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/two-biggest-problems-texas-ag-s-anti-election-lawsuit-n1250385

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/legal-expert-troubled-by-ken-paxtons-preposterous-lawsuit-against-battleground-states/

The message to don.....

tenor.gif&ehk=9j56mg15hjOFokvEZ2uXLhaE6X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2020 at 8:55 PM, Agent0range said:

But, I still don't see what part of the constitution it violated,

This may explain it better:

Begins at the 2 minute mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, and then said:

This is not an appeal. 

standing to sue then. 

Among the reasons the legal challenge is likely to fail, according to experts, are that the court may find Texas does not have standing to sue, it brought the legal challenge too late, or that there’s no evidence to support that the state elections were unconstitutional, and it also may take long enough for the case to be decided that the issue may be moot.

Actually I just noted that Trump has formally or is considering formally linking himself to the case - this may have the effect of weakening the standing. Paxton's case is a rehash of failed trump cases. It will easy for the Judges to point out, that this being the case there is nothing unique about the case which hasn't already being brought to the courts via the Trump campaign lawyers - therefore fails the uniqueness barrier for direct entry to the SC.  

Even if it does get to a hearing - there is little by way of 'evidence' for the court to hang onto. 

I stand by my original opinion - this case will be ditched at some point - by that I mean Trump et al will not get the remedy they seek. 

Edited by RAyMO
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Agent0range said:

That's about as equal as it gets, fella.

Then it shouldn't be a problem to let SCOTUS ponder it and get back to us.  Bottom line here is that the rushed implementation of mail-in ballots as well as the lack of any meaningful chain of custody or signature protections has caused a near total lack of confidence in this outcome.  Add to that the fact that multiple instances of irregularities that defy reason occurred in all these states and no matter WHICH team you're on, we have a TRAIN WRECK underway.

That's the issue that it seems to me people are ignoring.  Man, this is about one HELL of a lot more than whether the Orange Menace is removed.  Don't you grasp that?  He's gone from public office now or in 4 more years but if we allow our trust in our electoral system to be destroyed... what's left?  Remember when people used common sense, discussed issues respectfully and came to compromises?  It seems that now the plan is to use legacy and social media to tell people what they MUST think and to allow those who control that to be the arbiters of which freedoms we'll be allowed to enjoy.  I'd hope you agree with me that THAT outcome just isn't going to happen.

Finally, my acid test for this kind of situation has always been a simple one - would YOU accept this situation if it benefitted the other party?  We don't have to wonder about that answer.  We've seen it play out over 4 years.  And there was never any proof of any electoral wrongdoing whatever.  IMO, the Left is willing to risk the destruction of America because they've been brainwashed into hating an outsider. 

Meanwhile, they're willing to elevate an obviously corrupt 47-year politician who isn't even mentally all there any longer, despite people in China laughing about "owning him".  If Biden sits in that office because our system refuses to truly investigate and root out the fraud then there will never be another trustworthy election and once we lose that bond, nothing will save us.  Yeah.. it really IS that dire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Even if it does get to a hearing - there is little by way of 'evidence' for the court to hang onto. 

The fact that you can say this with a straight face tells me you have no interest in looking at evidence.  I think the court will hear it, if for no other reason than they will know that this election is unlike any other we've ever had and if they simply ignore the issues, this country is never going to know peaceful coexistence again.  This isn't just about red team, blue team any longer.  Whether Democrats care what Republicans believe or not, this election has been so broken and untrustworthy that regardless who sits in the big chair next year, half of the nation is going to be furious, disaffected and unwilling to compromise on anything.

Our enemies will be laughing at us while we go about tearing it all down for them...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Its a 'Hail Mary' with undertones of Mr President give me a pardon please. 

If Paxton is prosecuted for criminal activity in the state of Texas, neither Trump nor any other POTUS has the authority to pardon him - just to be clear.  I don't know if this action will bear any fruit but the relief they're asking for is rational and based on the facts on the ground in these 4 states.  In all instances, the  Equal Protection Clause is definitely being violated and regardless of who rejects the evidence out of hand, there IS copious amounts of personal testimonies, broken or totally lacking chain of custody protections and the removal or diminution of other safeguards against fraud in these 4 states.

The argument, as I understand it, is simple.  These states treated ballots differently based on how they were cast.  That's unconstitutional.  By doing this they created a situation where the votes in THOSE 4 states created a situation that effectively diluted the votes in the other states.  SCOTUS can ignore this or they can send it to the House.  One would hope that they choose the lesser of two evils.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, and then said:

The fact that you can say this with a straight face tells me you have no interest in looking at evidence.  I think the court will hear it, if for no other reason than they will know that this election is unlike any other we've ever had and if they simply ignore the issues, this country is never going to know peaceful coexistence again.  This isn't just about red team, blue team any longer.  Whether Democrats care what Republicans believe or not, this election has been so broken and untrustworthy that regardless who sits in the big chair next year, half of the nation is going to be furious, disaffected and unwilling to compromise on anything.

Our enemies will be laughing at us while we go about tearing it all down for them...

 

And this emotibe and tendentious rant raises the apprehension that you won't scrutinise evidence if it aligns cult doctrine.

The complaint in Kelly v Pa asserted Act 77 was illegal, yet SCOTUS denied the injunction. 

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.