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 -
Cookie Monster

Massive Voter Fraud

431 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Agent0range
6 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That's a completely separate matter, the Kelly v PA lawsuit is about if act 77 was legal or not.  Act 77 allowed the no reason mail in ballot when before in PA a reason was required.  Kelly argues that the Act violates the PA constitution and since amendments to the PA constitution were never done so act 77 is illegal and thus all the no reason mail in ballots are illegal.

What I was referring to was the PA Supreme court ruling that mail in ballots did not require signature matching, unlike in the past with mail in ballots or with in person voting.

Like I showed with a quote from the ruling...the PA Supreme Court ruled that because it is not in election law.  The Supreme Court is not there to make law, they are there to rule on existing law.  Existing law said nothing about signatures matching, therefore, they can't say you have to invalidate ballots due to signatures.  It doesn't take someone with a law degree who practiced for 20 years and appointed to the Supreme Court to come up with that.  That is pretty cut and dry to anyone...even a Trump supporter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
6 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Like I showed with a quote from the ruling...the PA Supreme Court ruled that because it is not in election law.  The Supreme Court is not there to make law, they are there to rule on existing law.  Existing law said nothing about signatures matching, therefore, they can't say you have to invalidate ballots due to signatures.  It doesn't take someone with a law degree who practiced for 20 years and appointed to the Supreme Court to come up with that.  That is pretty cut and dry to anyone...even a Trump supporter.

That still doesnt resolve the matter that mail in ballots and in person ballots had drastically different security requirements which arguably violates the Bush v Gore ruling.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

That still doesnt resolve the matter that mail in ballots and in person ballots had drastically different security requirements which arguably violates the Bush v Gore ruling.  

The Bush v Gore ruling involved Florida.  According to the constitution, states govern their own elections.  Florida and Pennsylvania have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and Nevada have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and Arizona have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and California have different election laws.  The point.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REGULATE STATE ELECTIONS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The Bush v Gore ruling involved Florida.  According to the constitution, states govern their own elections.  Florida and Pennsylvania have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and Nevada have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and Arizona have different election laws.  Pennsylvania and California have different election laws.  The point.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REGULATE STATE ELECTIONS.

Bush v Gore ruled that all ballots within a state have to be treated the same.  So while PA has it's own voting rules the Supreme Court has already decided that a state cant treat different types of ballots differently, such as having different security requirements for the ballots.  Its honestly not a hard concept to understand but you are clearly being obtuse cause you just dont want it to be true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
4 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Bush v Gore ruled that all ballots within a state have to be treated the same.  So while PA has it's own voting rules the Supreme Court has already decided that a state cant treat different types of ballots differently, such as having different security requirements for the ballots.  Its honestly not a hard concept to understand but you are clearly being obtuse cause you just dont want it to be true.

Quote

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'"[43]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." However, the Court did not state what those complexities were, nor did it explain (or apparently consider) why the absence of a constitutionally acceptable standard for counting votes, which was the basis for the Court's ruling, would not have invalidated the entire presidential election in Florida.[44]

That's from Wikipedia in regards to the ruling.  Now, for the Bush v. Gore ruling to apply, it would have to be shown that in person ballots were not counted due to signatures.  It has nothing to do with different requirements if you actually read the case, it has to do with all ballots treated fairly.  Pennsylvania does not disqualify in person ballots by signature, and they do not disqualify mail in ballots due to signature.  Therefore, mail in and in person were treated the same.  It may be a dumb law...but that's the law, and this case does not apply.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
22 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That's a completely separate matter, the Kelly v PA lawsuit is about if act 77 was legal or not.  Act 77 allowed the no reason mail in ballot when before in PA a reason was required.  Kelly argues that the Act violates the PA constitution and since amendments to the PA constitution were never done so act 77 is illegal and thus all the no reason mail in ballots are illegal.

What I was referring to was the PA Supreme court ruling that mail in ballots did not require signature matching, unlike in the past with mail in ballots or with in person voting.

In upholding Boockvar's petition the SCOPA base their judgement on the same code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Best read that article  bro.  The DOJ uncovered NO EVIDENCE of WIDESPREAD FRAUD.  Barr said as much today and put the nail in the box for Trump.

Hee hee...i was being a scamp :innocent:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Hee hee...i was being a scamp :innocent:

More of a scallywag, actually.:P

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

As far as barr goes ill speculate that like with countless others including some rather close scared cows of messiah don these guys are getting a hell of a wake up slap, even ivanka seems converned.

is their future and families future worth the very likely possibility that when trumps house o cards tumbles they will fall with it and they seen how deranged don functiond he wouldnt give 2nd thought or lose a wink of sleep if they get locked up,

Almost no way that if a "pay for a pardon" scheme was going on barr wouldnt have known, so he has to realize there isnt a "4 more" safety net. Barr has to look out for barr.

I have figured that the moment trump couldnt hide behind the presidential seal legal issues would be like krakatoa but with the way these guys are backing away from trump im now thinking it might run deeping that i could have ever imagined.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, and then said:

https://drrichswier.com/2020/11/26/pennsylvania-expert-witness-the-biden-injection-vote-dump-of-600k-570k-went-for-biden-3200-for-trump-video/

Too funny, the second source has been shut down.  See how ridiculous it is to demand MSM sources that would have anything other than BOM hate?  You people may steal an election but you'll play hell trying to shut the rest of us up or to take Constitutional rights away.  All this election will achieve is to finalize the fracture of America into warring factions.

If you plan to denigrate the source, don't bother on my account.  Demanding that Trump supporters PROVE these claims with MSM sources is ridiculous.  You won't find any of them admitting a damned thing.  If you're okay with ignoring this then that's on you.

Well that explains your journey over the cuckoos nest. r/conservative is full of proper crazies these days. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRb5OInuKuWCP1QrU2YwE

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
3 hours ago, Agent0range said:

That's from Wikipedia in regards to the ruling.  Now, for the Bush v. Gore ruling to apply, it would have to be shown that in person ballots were not counted due to signatures.  It has nothing to do with different requirements if you actually read the case, it has to do with all ballots treated fairly.  Pennsylvania does not disqualify in person ballots by signature, and they do not disqualify mail in ballots due to signature.  Therefore, mail in and in person were treated the same.  It may be a dumb law...but that's the law, and this case does not apply.

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.

I would say I proves a signature is needed for in person voting, but since you like to pretend you know what you are talking about I'm sure you will just ignore the PA election code.  Living in PA it is kind of useful to know how the voting laws work.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

In upholding Boockvar's petition the SCOPA base their judgement on the same code.

I'll be honest I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make.

For Act 77 the issue is that it actually does violate the PA constitution.  PA is a weird state and from what I gathered is on occasion it seems an Act will be passed that violates the constitution then at a later point the constitution gets amended to make the Act legal.  In the case of Act 77 that amendment never got passed.  The issue is that ballots that are mailed in are directly mentioned in the PA constitution and the rules governing them cant really be changed unless there is an amendment to the PA constitution which never occured.

For the mail in ballot not requiring signatures that was ruled more on a technically that the section dealing with mail in ballots didnt explicitly state that a signature was required.  

If by code you are referring to PA election code that is a near 300 page document with a ton of subsets covering a ton of areas.  But like I said I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make so it's a bit challenging to respond.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Here's a little more non-evidence -

The fools that think that just rejecting this information is enough to nullify its effect are in for a surprise.  This isn't about changing THEIR minds.  It's going to solidify the efforts to resist this steal.  If Trump decides to start a new party, he will crush the Republicans.  The Dems will go full Marxist and destroy themselves.  Yeah... all things considered, I expect the PTB are going to regret the blowback from their criminality in this election.  I foresee ever-larger and more energetic MAGA RALLIES.  It will be interesting to see how the Democrat Stasi respond.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

I'm waiting till things go to the Supreme Court.

3ir19u.jpg

main332.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, godnodog said:

Did these witnesses gave enough info to the investigators to prove fraud? I really am asking, cause all I´ve read about this is that "No they did not provided with enough info or credible info or evidence"
Also these witnesses could be very well been "counter" by witnesses that claim by affidavit that nothing happened, that´s why evidences are needed and nono so far has come up.

I'm not aware of ANY Democrats in any of these cities who are filing affidavits denying the veracity of the charges.  Sure, they mock and use their propaganda tools to dismiss these charges but they won't actually risk anything.  In our system, evidence is produced during a trial.  The judiciary has become so politicized that we have judges dismissing these arguments before even exploring them.  Thankfully, these cases SHOULD get a final appeal to SCOTUS.  Whether he'll get a fair hearing or not depends on who you ask.  It won't surprise me if he loses.  The reaction of the 70 million who voted for him is apt to be just like his campaigns.  Massive rallies around the nation, basically giving the middle finger to Joe, the puppet of the Tan Messiah.  

Also, if you are actually interested in how this all went down, you are wasting your time paying any attention to legacy media, FB or Twitter.  You have to dig a bit.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
31 minutes ago, and then said:

The fools that think that just rejecting this information is enough to nullify its effect are in for a surprise.  This isn't about changing THEIR minds.  It's going to solidify the efforts to resist this steal.  If Trump decides to start a new party, he will crush the Republicans.  The Dems will go full Marxist and destroy themselves.  Yeah... all things considered, I expect the PTB are going to regret the blowback from their criminality in this election.  I foresee ever-larger and more energetic MAGA RALLIES.  It will be interesting to see how the Democrat Stasi respond.  

Andthen, wake up and get your head in the game.  You are projecting on 80 million people and rail about them rejecting information or changing THEIR minds as if that were the major issue or mattered..

All you need is to get this evidence to court.  It is not a matter of what one half or the other think or believe or reject.  It is about evidence in court.  That is our system, the Constitution, remember?

GET YOUR EVIDENCE TO COURT.  That is all it takes. It may not be as glorious as taking up arms against a host of non-believers, but  it has worked for a couple hundred years.

You are right of course, if Trump did start his own party he would take 2/3 of the Republicans with him.  

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
1 hour ago, and then said:

I'm not aware of ANY Democrats in any of these cities who are filing affidavits denying the veracity of the charges.  Sure, they mock and use their propaganda tools to dismiss these charges but they won't actually risk anything.  In our system, evidence is produced during a trial.  The judiciary has become so politicized that we have judges dismissing these arguments before even exploring them.  Thankfully, these cases SHOULD get a final appeal to SCOTUS.  Whether he'll get a fair hearing or not depends on who you ask.  It won't surprise me if he loses.  The reaction of the 70 million who voted for him is apt to be just like his campaigns.  Massive rallies around the nation, basically giving the middle finger to Joe, the puppet of the Tan Messiah.  

Also, if you are actually interested in how this all went down, you are wasting your time paying any attention to legacy media, FB or Twitter.  You have to dig a bit.  

you keep digging, when you find the evidences you let the courts know first then us, because over here it's no longer a conspiracy but a really bad joke from man childs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
10 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

According to the Voter Integrity Project at minimum a little over 20,000 mail in ballots were cast that should not of been counted in Georgia.  The reason why these ballots shouldn't of been counted was either people moved out of the state before the election or they put an illegitimate address as the residency address, like a mall, post office, shipping center, commercial building, ect.  

A hand count would still count those ballots even though threw minor investigative work would show they are illegitimate.

If you think the voter integrity project is reliable or not would be up to you to decide.

very good point, now all they have to do is prove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
2 hours ago, and then said:

I'm not aware of ANY Democrats in any of these cities who are filing affidavits denying the veracity of the charges.  

why should they? the affidavits so far are being thrown out by investigators or courts.

Democrats haven't had to fight this so far because theses cases are self defeating themselves (sorry I don't know how to be write this in a clearer way)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, and then said:

I'm not aware of ANY Democrats in any of these cities who are filing affidavits denying the veracity of the charges. 

Last time I looked, the operating principle in American jurisprudence is innocent until proven guilty.  It is up to the state or the plaintiff to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
2 hours ago, and then said:

I'm not aware of ANY Democrats in any of these cities who are filing affidavits denying the veracity of the charges.  Sure, they mock and use their propaganda tools to dismiss these charges but they won't actually risk anything.  In our system, evidence is produced during a trial.  We have Republican-appointed judges dismissing these arguments.  Thankfully, these cases SHOULD get a final appeal to SCOTUS.  Whether he'll get a fair hearing or not depends on who you ask.  It won't surprise me if he loses.  The reaction of the 70 million who voted for him is apt to be just like his campaigns.  Massive rallies around the nation, basically giving the middle finger to Joe, the puppet of the Tan Messiah.  

Also, if you are actually interested in how this all went down, you are wasting your time paying any attention to legacy media, FB or Twitter.  You have to dig a bit.  

FTFY.  :-)

Edited by Peter B
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Bush v Gore ruled that all ballots within a state have to be treated the same.  So while PA has it's own voting rules the Supreme Court has already decided that a state cant treat different types of ballots differently, such as having different security requirements for the ballots.  Its honestly not a hard concept to understand but you are clearly being obtuse cause you just dont want it to be true.

With the greatest of respect, Judge Brann didn't think so in his judgement: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7331957-Judge-Brann-Decision.html  From about page 27 on for a few pages. He was addressing an Equal Protection claim from the Constitution, rather than Bush v Gore. I'll let the lawyers sort out the difference.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRb5OInuKuWCP1QrU2YwE

Maddonna

Edited by South Alabam
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
On 12/2/2020 at 11:38 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Coors I suspect.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 11:48 AM, and then said:

Good guess.  It was Coors Light, actually.  My last drink was just over 10 years ago.  Nice of you to insult me in such a casual way.  That's real classy.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 11:57 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I was hoping against all presented evidence that you were drunk posting rather than actually posting the threatening, quite vile, things you are. I thought more of you

ohh crap, mea culpa dude, it just occurred to me why that cut so deeply. You’re a recovering alcoholic aren’t you? ****. I totally forgot. I’m really sorry, that comment was was cruel of me to direct at you.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.