I seriously doubt SCOTUS will agree. I just hope they take the case. Our first big win could be soon if SCOTUS takes this case.
This case is a Godsend for us, in that SCOTUS tends to only take election cases that are "outcome decisive". In this case, the case is "outcome decisive" for Parnell and thus they might be inclined to take it up.
The case has some very significant implications as well. The questions posed are very fundamental - Can states legislate contrary to the state constitution in regards to the conduct of a federal election? Seems to be a worthy question.
Problem is the margin might not be slim enough to convince them it would change the result. I wonder if the fact there was no signature verification and poll watchers being denied access is in the lawsuit
There's many ways to construct the legal arguement as the questions at hand can be many. The key is to NOT give any wiggle room to the judges or the opposition. Hence, my spam, and my 2nd comment link of legal ground redpills, in that spam. If start asking things like mentioned:
"Can states legislate contrary to the state constitution in regards to the conduct of a federal election?"
Well see we're a Republic, we don't have "federal elections", and by such a simple difference, gives all the democracy rats & commies the 1-inch to steal a mile of "federalizing elections via case law via the SCOTUS via the ol' Marbury v Madison game of picking cases to move the goalposts of the law or Constitution as written; via the "next round" of legislation codifying the case law goalpost movement, and <repeat>... thus getting to where we are now, without the US Constitution as written.
they are INTENTIONALLY toying with a real lion GEOTUS, i believe they WANT to spark a hot civil war so that they call for UN "peacekeepers" (UN=CHYNA) to invade and "try" to occupy...good luck wit dat commies, you will see FIRE AND FURY the likes of which never before seen!
Seriously, at this point--UN 'peacekeepers' with their blue helmets trying to impose fascism on ARMED American patriots only ends one way. Their heads on a spike.
While the State & legal Constitutional Legal Grounds in the lawsuit are rock solid; but there are plenty of problems within the Court System based on craploads of crap case law and court procedures & rules which need to be tossed out and drained too.
This is similar to the lawsuits that sue Governors/Officials over CovidLockdowns; the remedy to ask the Court shouldn't just be "nullification" of those unconstitutional orders by the officials; but also having the Court remove the bad official for violating their Oath of Office; thus both problems solved, and prevented from repeating.
Can go to winred (the centralized DJT/GOP/Republican donation/payment platform which keeps dirty money out) and donate to PA congressman Mike Kelly & PA congressional candidate Sean Parnell to help pay for the lawsuit.
Best Part of the WIN&WIN Plan, it doesn't take standing or time restrictions,
only takes people willing to fund the fight! Keep it going pedes! The Whole WIN & WIN Enchillada to clean this whole Election Cycle, now and for our Posterity:
It's pretty simple, Oaths are administered by judiciary; and what happens when a person breaks that Oath?
Who does one go to in our 3 branch system for having the Oath enforced (as written in the US Constitution & State Constitutions)?
Proving an Oath being broken, isn't hard, when the official/employee openly states violations of it; like all Sanctuary Cities/States whom have taken overt actions; or as the lockdown officials have.
This is ALL exactly what a Court of Law is for. However, the judicial power of a court to issue rulings and orders & hearings on Oaths; doesn't need to be judicial judge & jury. Because enforcing an Oath violation/abdication is not a criminal process/proceding/trial. The Oath is for holding office; and without it being adminstered or held to, equals an abdication of office (ie like a king taking off their crown.)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Furthemore, this is not like impeachment or recalls; those could be for things which are Oath Violations/abdications too; but more broadly and by different mechanisms. Like a person could be impeached for something, but that something didn't violate their Oath. These are different mechanisms.
The power of Oaths, as per the Montesqueian Spirit of Laws Separation of Powers; is a judicial branch power. The power to enforce Oaths or rule on abdication of Oaths is also a judicial one.
If it's not judical branch, then which branch is it? If not the judge, then who? If not any of the above, then the Oath is not only meaningless & unenforceable & a legal passage in the US Constitution without a home? And of course every word in the US Constitution has a home, and every word in the US Constitution is the Law of the Land.
Just because people ignore the law, or break the law, even for a long time; doesn't make it legal or right. Like 99% of the "problems" we face, it can be simply solved by following the words written in the US Constitution, and the cannon of law upon which the US Constitution itself rests upon.
Obviously corrupt court. Political activist judged should be permanently stripped of their positions. They should be sue-able for their jobs and their pensions.
I seriously doubt SCOTUS will agree. I just hope they take the case. Our first big win could be soon if SCOTUS takes this case.
This case is a Godsend for us, in that SCOTUS tends to only take election cases that are "outcome decisive". In this case, the case is "outcome decisive" for Parnell and thus they might be inclined to take it up.
The case has some very significant implications as well. The questions posed are very fundamental - Can states legislate contrary to the state constitution in regards to the conduct of a federal election? Seems to be a worthy question.
It's so blatantly against the Constitution. I'm worried they win but rule that there's no change to this election, but for next election
And disenfranchise millions of legal voters? they won't.
Problem is the margin might not be slim enough to convince them it would change the result. I wonder if the fact there was no signature verification and poll watchers being denied access is in the lawsuit
never said it wasnt
There's many ways to construct the legal arguement as the questions at hand can be many. The key is to NOT give any wiggle room to the judges or the opposition. Hence, my spam, and my 2nd comment link of legal ground redpills, in that spam. If start asking things like mentioned:
Well see we're a Republic, we don't have "federal elections", and by such a simple difference, gives all the democracy rats & commies the 1-inch to steal a mile of "federalizing elections via case law via the SCOTUS via the ol' Marbury v Madison game of picking cases to move the goalposts of the law or Constitution as written; via the "next round" of legislation codifying the case law goalpost movement, and <repeat>... thus getting to where we are now, without the US Constitution as written.
It's no laughing matter. These people are paying with fire.
they are INTENTIONALLY toying with a real lion GEOTUS, i believe they WANT to spark a hot civil war so that they call for UN "peacekeepers" (UN=CHYNA) to invade and "try" to occupy...good luck wit dat commies, you will see FIRE AND FURY the likes of which never before seen!
Seriously, at this point--UN 'peacekeepers' with their blue helmets trying to impose fascism on ARMED American patriots only ends one way. Their heads on a spike.
Serious question: are US citizens allowed to fire upon foreign armed invaders attempting to occupy our nation?
Does it matter if there is no one to prosecute you?
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY
You either don't have standing or it's too late to remedy when you do suffer damages.
While the State & legal Constitutional Legal Grounds in the lawsuit are rock solid; but there are plenty of problems within the Court System based on craploads of crap case law and court procedures & rules which need to be tossed out and drained too.
This is similar to the lawsuits that sue Governors/Officials over CovidLockdowns; the remedy to ask the Court shouldn't just be "nullification" of those unconstitutional orders by the officials; but also having the Court remove the bad official for violating their Oath of Office; thus both problems solved, and prevented from repeating.
Can go to winred (the centralized DJT/GOP/Republican donation/payment platform which keeps dirty money out) and donate to PA congressman Mike Kelly & PA congressional candidate Sean Parnell to help pay for the lawsuit.
https://winred.com/
...
Best Part of the WIN&WIN Plan, it doesn't take standing or time restrictions,
only takes people willing to fund the fight! Keep it going pedes! The Whole WIN & WIN Enchillada to clean this whole Election Cycle, now and for our Posterity:
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8EhtERu/for-everyone-who-wants-djtpence-/
PLEASE GODSPEED IT TO OUR PRESIDENT, and others!!
It's pretty simple, Oaths are administered by judiciary; and what happens when a person breaks that Oath?
Who does one go to in our 3 branch system for having the Oath enforced (as written in the US Constitution & State Constitutions)?
Proving an Oath being broken, isn't hard, when the official/employee openly states violations of it; like all Sanctuary Cities/States whom have taken overt actions; or as the lockdown officials have.
This is ALL exactly what a Court of Law is for. However, the judicial power of a court to issue rulings and orders & hearings on Oaths; doesn't need to be judicial judge & jury. Because enforcing an Oath violation/abdication is not a criminal process/proceding/trial. The Oath is for holding office; and without it being adminstered or held to, equals an abdication of office (ie like a king taking off their crown.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Furthemore, this is not like impeachment or recalls; those could be for things which are Oath Violations/abdications too; but more broadly and by different mechanisms. Like a person could be impeached for something, but that something didn't violate their Oath. These are different mechanisms.
The power of Oaths, as per the Montesqueian Spirit of Laws Separation of Powers; is a judicial branch power. The power to enforce Oaths or rule on abdication of Oaths is also a judicial one.
If it's not judical branch, then which branch is it? If not the judge, then who? If not any of the above, then the Oath is not only meaningless & unenforceable & a legal passage in the US Constitution without a home? And of course every word in the US Constitution has a home, and every word in the US Constitution is the Law of the Land.
Just because people ignore the law, or break the law, even for a long time; doesn't make it legal or right. Like 99% of the "problems" we face, it can be simply solved by following the words written in the US Constitution, and the cannon of law upon which the US Constitution itself rests upon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
Kek. That's accurate.
Obviously corrupt court. Political activist judged should be permanently stripped of their positions. They should be sue-able for their jobs and their pensions.
How about offered a blindfold and/or cigarette before they get fired (at)?
This is just straight pilpul.
Understand that word and see who's really taking us over. Marxist commies.
First one in the image is Sean Parnell's suit, and the second part of the image is from GEOTUS campaign.
The first part of the image is self-explanatory (Sean's suit), and on the second part (Trump's suit) read it from line 11.
Rogue courts + Rogue government + Rogue intelligence community + Foreign election interference = Insurrection Act
Leftist Democrat judges do whatever they want and even use bullshit to justify. It’s time our judges do the exact same thing. Get that W.
To answer the question. This is the PA Supreme Court. I believe it.
Hangin time. That's just obnoxiously two-faced and slimey.
So what you have like a five minute span to file for this and have to guess when it is?