Voter Fraud 6.0 ... until the fat lady sings (updated)

George Rebane

I asked this question of BarryP - "BarryP 549pm - don't the states have an argument for being aggrieved by the federally unconstitutional and/or purposive violation of state election laws that may/will foster an outcome of that state's election which on the federal level then illegally weighs against the legitimate voters of the aggrieved state? That is plenty of evidence for 'suffering harm' that supports the plaintiff state's standing with SCOTUS. What am I missing here?"  Barry said the answer was a long one and wanted to know where to post it.  My question is seminal, so I'm asking Barry to email me his answer, and I'll post right here for all to read.

Everyone else, please continue your election fraud relevant comment threads from 'Voter Fraud 5.0' hereunder.

[Worth repeating the 10dec20 update to Voter Fraud 5.0] Now here’s a shot in the shorts of all those on the Left telling the nation a slew of Big Lies about the integrity of the Dominion (Vote Editing) Software.  ‘Election Supervisor Shows on Video How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes’.  This should renew some interest in the courts now chewing on election fraud suits.  The evidence tsunami is of historical proportions.  I know of no legal battle fought in my lifetime in which the plaintiffs have had such a profusion of evidence.

[update] Barry Pruett emailed me the following in answer to my question above.

George. Your comment regarding state election laws and not following them is definitely on point.

The problem is how the courts of the United States function. Generally speaking at both state and federal level, there are two different types of issues. There are factual issues, and there are legal issues. State trial courts and federal district courts are courts that deal with both of these issues. The jury in these courts or the judge must hear evidence and then make factual findings of what is true.  The trial court then applies these findings to the law in order to make a determination and a final adjudication.  

In my trials, we present evidence to the court, the court makes their findings of what the truth is, and then the judge applies those facts to the law and makes a final ruling.  This trial process takes years, and the litigants herein are trying to jam this process into the matter of four weeks. It is simply not possible.

In any event, (if) a litigant does not like the ruling and would like to appeal, (then) the litigant can always appeal to the state appeals court or to the circuit court depending on whether the case is a state court or a federal court, respectively. The appeals court takes the facts as found and established by the trial court and then re-applies them to the law. The appeals court is not a court set up to hear evidence or to make new factual findings, as that function is a function of the trial court. 

After the appeals court reads the briefs of the parties and after argument, the appeals court makes a ruling as to the law and whether the trial court followed the law when it applied the facts that the trial court found. 

If the litigant again believes that the appeals court misapplied the facts (as found by the trial court) to the law and arrived at the incorrect result, the litigant can request the supreme court of the state or of the United States to review the appeals court ruling. This is called a petition for writ of certiorari.  While litigants are entitled to one appeal, most litigants are not entitled to review by either the state supreme court or the Supreme Court without permission of that court. Supreme courts are selective in the cases that they review and will only review cases that affect state constitutional law or federal constitutional law.  If supreme court grants certiorari, then the court will hear of the matter, and the court will apply the facts (as found by the trial court) to the law and make a ruling.  The process from beginning litigation, having a trial, having two appeals and getting a ruling from a Supreme Court can take five years.  It simply isn’t reasonable to have a trial on this matter in three weeks. It’s not possible.

On that backdrop, the Supreme Court has a problem with this case. This case is a case of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court is the first court and the only court to which states can go when they sue each other.  This original jurisdiction creates a problem for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not equipped to have a jury trials or to sort out the facts of the case and make factual findings. What we have right now is Texas making factual and legal allegations against four other states. The four other states are denying the factual allegations of Texas. So the question becomes what is the Supreme Court supposed to do. Who is the Supreme Court supposed to believe?  Does the supreme court appoint a trial judge (who) has a special master to determine the facts?  Clearly the supreme court’s not going to have a trial on the merits. That’s not how the Supreme Court functions.

And even if the Supreme Court did appoint a special master or a special trial judge to sort out the facts, what remedy can the Supreme Court fashion?  After they sorted out the facts and apply those facts to the law and potentially determined that, yes, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia fraudulently violated the electors’ clause in the Constitution in the way that they conducted their election, now what?  I believe it would be within the power of the Supreme Court to decertify the elections in those four states but only after they’ve made adequate factual findings.  I think some of the issues however are strictly legal. The state law says elections are to be conducted in X manner, but the executive officers of the states conducted the election in X plus Y manner. It is in writing, and it’s easily identifiable. The allegations of fraud are extraordinarily factual and would almost require testimony to be able to be determined. The question becomes whether the state executive officers unconstitutionally conducted the election and did it affect the outcome?  Can anyone even know that?  In any event, article II of the Constitution provides that the state legislatures shall make the rules and the laws in connection with electing electors for the state. State law says elections are to be conducted in X manner but the executive officers of the state conducted the election and X plus Y manner, then the executive officers violated the Constitution. 

Is Texas affected by this violation of the Constitution? Certainly they’re affected. Their choice for president when they had a legal election is affected by the other states having an illegal election. 

So now what’s the remedy?  The only constitutional remedy is for the state legislators to determine who the correct electors are for each state or whether that can even be determined. Because the power of the state legislature is found in the constitution, the Supreme Court can’t order the state legislature to do anything. The state legislatures power is plenary, and the Supreme Court can’t do anything about that.

I believe that the Supreme Court will dump this back to the state legislatures and tell them to figure this mess out. The Constitution gives the state legislatures the responsibility and duty to figure out this mess, and it is not for the Supreme Court to nullify or de-certify an election without a well-developed factual basis. 

The Supreme Court can assert that the timelines (as) established by Congress are unconstitutional. Legislation cannot add or take away from the dictates of the constitution. The only date in the constitution that is a hard deadline is January 20. The Supreme Court will probably give the state legislature some time to figure out this mess, and then dump it back to them to figure it out.

Again, trying to figure out what the Supreme Court will do at any given moment it’s like reading tea leaves. I hope this provides some background about how the system works and where we’re at right now.  Barry

Comments

[Walt]

Dung,,, C'umon Man!!! Your attack the messenger and produce no facts that he WRONG.
You never care about facts or the truth.
Now where is your answer Dung pile? Just what great things is the Alzheimer's sufferer going to do? (raising taxes don't count, nor does reinstating all the regulations,, nor jacking up the price of fuel)
Another try at free health care? So cheap no one can us it?

[L]

Here's a fun one for Paul:

Did OJ murder Nicole (Brown) Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Yes or no?

Prediction: Paul will refuse to answer that question.

[Gregory]

So Barry... "mike drop" is a good thing from you in this context?

I tried to keep it simple, stupid. KISS. In fact, if that was adopted in all states, permanently. I think I could even live with a President Harris for a time.

[Gregory]

And one more thing... the ballots to be given a mark, indicating where it was printed and a serial number. Encrypted... just to catch ballots printed by an unofficial source... not a number that could be used to tie a ballot to an individual voter.

[paul emery]

Barry

Here's a link to fact checking many of the allegations.

Very interesting information. I spend a lot of time checking out your fact link so now it's your turn

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029

[Don Bessee]

As if @641. LOL

;-)

[fish]

Very interesting information = It supports everything I'm desperate to believe.

.

[D]

Yo Bar, all your lame lawsuits failed. End of story.

Fox News thinks you boys are clueless idiots.

https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-trump-election-fraud/

[fish]

Posted by: D | 15 December 2020 at 07:30 PM

Fox News thinks you boys are clueless idiots.

OH NOES.......not Fox News.....????

/tard

[Walt]

Notice how Emery and the Douche (New 4:20 radio show on KVMR)
ditch, dodge, and prance away from any question or comment about a dirty LIB? Take the head grifter Hunter(and family crack smoker) Not a peep from the two.
Joe's against the wall finger bang.. Noth'n...

Sticking with the "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Commiecrat. is alive and well.

[Barry Pruett]

Paul I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying that Biden won the election, and I’m not saying that Trump won the election. What I’m saying is based on the election results and the conduct of the election, we cannot know who won. And that is the entire problem. Our elections should be beyond reproach. Our elections should be the most secure and honest elections in the world. They are not. They are not because of the loose and election security measures enforced by Democrats. This issue with our elections creates vast problems with a future of our democracy. In order for our democracy to continue, our elections must be pure and pristine. Your failure to understand the consequences of how Democrats run elections…the ends justify the means…cheapens and ruins our democracy to the point where perpetual conflict is the only resolution.

[Walt]

LIBS got their dream guy. Who accomplishments (or lack thereof) will be compared to Trump's.. Every day.

"Trump accomplished "X".. how come you can't?"
"Trump didn't sell out to Lil' fat boy.. WHY did you?"
"Trump didn't take any of China's crap.. How come you fellating with gusto?"
"We had good fuel prices with Trump.. How come we are paying plenty more?"

Can Emery or the Douche say that ain't going to happen?
Still not a peep from either on the "great" things Joementia is going to do.

[L]

How come our "president-elect" drew zero supporters at his recent 'rally' in Georgia?

Is that what in means to have "no coattails"?

[D]

Poor WalDoH!™ - getting a tingle with his fantastical prognostications last night.

[D]

Walking the President,

https://twitter.com/markdamon77/status/1339253198150725632?s=20

[paul emery]

Barry

Democrats didn't "run" the elections in the swing states of Arizona or Georgia and they both voted for Biden. Both had Republican governors and for Georga majority Republican elected officals. How do you explain that?

[D]

Paul, Barry cannot handle the truth. Look at his last post. Democrats this, Democrats that. He knows the truth of your 938am but he cannot bring himself to believe it.

Barry suffers from the Trump Virus.

[Barry Pruett]

Arizona has a democrat secretary of state I am pretty sure. As far as Georgia goes, Brian Kemp and Raffensperger are afraid of Stacy Abrams and made that silly settlement agreement that loosened all election security measures. They won’t be in office very much longer. I also heard that Raffensperger is changing his party to Democrat. What else do you have Paul?

[D]

Barry, after the treatment he received from his "fellow" Republicans can you blame Raffensperger for bailing out of that vapor locked plane?

[paul emery]

Thanks or acknowledging that at the time of the election Arizona and Georgia had Re pub governors. Quite a feat I'd say for the Dems to accomplish what you allege Barry. It involves 6 or 7 states and Republican legislatures in many of them. For sure a well co-ordinates conspiracy. Who was as the General of the task Barry and how was it co-ordinated without any detection?

[Barry Pruett]

Oh my Lord. I am starting to think that you have a mental defect. You are not listening at all. I say "apple" to you and you respond with "brown pinto hatchback." Complete waste of time having a "conversation" with you. Maybe someone else can try to talk to him...I am done.

[paul emery]

I am listening Barry but I have questions about the logistics of pulling something like that off. Was it an organic thing or was it directed and conceived in advance with the intended consequences being Biden stealing the election as you claim.

[Walt]

Emery and D- were such good shills. carrying more water than Gunga Din for Biden and they don't get any freebees.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-inauguration-1-million-vip-chair

And to think my Dad got an invite to Reagan's for FREE.

[D]

File under batshit fraud hunters,

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55342288?__twitter_impression=true

[Walt]

Now just why would they need to charge big bucks to prop up Biden in front of a dozen or so suckers?
His defence fund for upcoming indictments?

[Barry Pruett]

Paul. Will you please read this and respond. Once. Democrat/Republican does not matter. For the record, I am not a registered Republican right now. I am DTS in protest of these politicians. I changed my registration in 2016 when we moved. I am my own party. Lol.

"I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying that Biden won the election, and I’m not saying that Trump won the election. What I’m saying is based on the election results and the conduct of the election, we cannot know who won. And that is the entire problem. Our elections should be beyond reproach. Our elections should be the most secure and honest elections in the world. They are not. They are not because of the loose and election security measures enforced by Democrats. This issue with our elections creates vast problems with a future of our democracy. In order for our democracy to continue, our elections must be pure and pristine. Your failure to understand the consequences of how Democrats run elections…the ends justify the means…cheapens and ruins our democracy to the point where perpetual conflict is the only resolution.

Posted by: Barry Pruett | 15 December 2020 at 09:49 PM"

[Walt]

Good try D- Go to the REDcoat's news.. You made a great turncoat. Not once have you defended free and fair elections.

[Don Bessee]

The swamp creatures show themselves -

Good to see Ratcliffe stepping up and addressing the China issue inside the IC. This appears to be a textbook case of intelligence being politicized by a handful of careerists in the bowels of the CIA. They don’t want to give Trump the talking points that China was engaged in election influence operations, but we all know they were.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/16/deep-state-pushes-to-deep-six-intelligence-report-demonstrating-chinese-interference-in-2020-election/

;-)

[paul emery]

Barry

Very simply do you support the Texas AG lawsuit that would void the designated swing states presidential votes and therefore give the election to Trump?

If not what do you propose should be done at this time?

[Barry Pruett]

The only thing to do is not allow the certification of elections that can’t be certified. Simple. It is not up to the Supreme Court. Such power lies exclusively and absolutely with the state legislatures. It is up to them, and it is a big decision.

[Walt]

Go smoke your dope Emery.

[Walt]

It's obvious Emery didn't watch ANY of the hearing this morning.

[paul emery]

Thanks for the deep thinking Walt.

Barry, I'll get back with this tomorrow. Thanks for engaging.

[Don Bessee]

Thanks for the lack of comprehension oh great pony tail of ignorance! LOL

;-)

[Barry Pruett]

This explanation is spot on. Laws matter. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. If we are not a nation of laws, that is going to be a problem for a lot of folks.

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/17/california-clearly-violated-election-law-votes-are-invalid/

[Gregory]

barry 201pm

The votes are invalid but at least for President, there's nothing to be gained by challenging it, since the state legislature is free to override any selection of electors, and Dems have a supermajority.

[Barry Pruett]

Absolutely Greg. I am making a broader point that we must follow our own laws. Don’t just not follow them. If you don’t like the laws, change them. Don’t ignore them. It is disrespectful to our society and to America.

[Walt]

Emery vineyards (where you can find untold amounts of whine)
was complaining about Trump's pardons....
Well look what happened with one of his boy "O"'s pardoned terrorists.
https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2020/12/17/cuba-promotes-killer-spy-freed-made-father-obama/

"Hernández was a member of the “Cuban Five,” a spy collective sent to infiltrate pro-democracy groups in Miami. He was serving two life sentences and 15 years in prison for conspiracy to murder when then-President Barack Obama freed him in 2014, allowing them to return to Cuba to a hero’s welcome."

I will pass on that free case of Chatu Whineo Emery.