I request you exercise your Constitutional and statutory authority to object to the certification of any elector from any state that refuses to allow a meaningful audit of the November general election for electors to the Presidency, which must include: 1) a re-canvass of the vote that authorizes independent confirmation of a signature match using the same standards the same election officials use for nomination petitions, recall petitions, and initiative petitions; 2) publishing of the ballots for the world to review and observe, as states promised when they wrote large taxpayer checks to election machine companies like Dominion and others; and 3) audited review of the voter rolls to insure only qualified voters cast ballots for electors to the Presidency. If a state refuses to allow an honest audit of the vote, then I request you object to the certification of any electors from that state which has refused such an audit. At present, this includes the electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
There is reason for my concern. The state legislatures in the respective states chose a method for choosing electors to the Presidency that cabined who qualified to vote, constricted the manner in which a vote could be cast, and circumscribed how the vote could be counted. Many of the restrictions and requirements for each of those three were not followed by several of the states in question. President Carter warned in 2005 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. The New York Times agreed in 2012 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. Jurists, experts, and election officials all concurred that mass mail-in balloting posed the greatest risk of fraud. We just had the biggest absentee-ballot driven election in American history. Yet, the very safety guardrails of this election were systemically and systematically removed, often without the assent or consent of the state legislatures, despite the express promise and explicit protection of the Electors Clause to the Constitution. Midnight counts outside the meaningful observation of poll-watchers. 11% signature mismatches according to the Democratic expert in the election contest in Arizona. Votes from dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents found in the research of Matt Braynard and Richard Baris. Is it really too much to ask that states publish the ballots they promised to publish? Is it really too much to ask that states allow an independently confirmed signature match, at least to a statistically significant sample, of the absentee ballots? Is it really too much to ask for the states to affirm that only those qualified to vote cast ballots for the Presidency?
The Supreme Court directed any remedy to you, and Congress, when it declined to hear the case brought by the state of Texas, a suit joined by the Attorneys General for 18 states representing more than 100 million Americans, 126 members of Congress, high ranking state legislators from the objectionable elections of the states at issue, and public interest advocacy groups representing millions of Americans. I ask that you do me the small favor of simply objecting to electors under the circumstances herein described. At a minimum, it can give confidence to me, and more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that our concerns about this election were taken seriously and meaningfully addressed in the only place the courts have directed remedy can occur: the halls of Congress.
The Constitutional conscience of the country depends upon the choices you make. Many thanks for your kind attention to these critical concerns.
You were just sharing info in the beginning. When I shared info about the problems with it, you stopped sharing info and started arguing. Then when I shared MORE info, and pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, you got defensive. Let's be honest, pede. I don't want to fight with you. We have a common goal. However, Barnes' letter, and his impotent attempt to "distribute" it, truncated, behind a login, unlinkable, unprintable (not a downloadable file), (too long to text), etc...Instead of acknowledging these points of resistance (each point of resistance will decrease participation by some amount) you focused on ONE, that you were not even right about, then got mad at ME for not fixing it.
Barnes, at least, is doing SOMETHING. He, like you, can't be faulted for that. But, Barnes has tremendous resources. When you make a mistake, it is easily forgiven. When Barnes does, as pompous as he is, and as well-funded as he is, makes a bungling attempt and puts it behind a registration login, I have to doubt his commitment, competence, or wonder if he is using it as a promotional gimmick to boost Parler (which is I think where it was posted behind a registration login). The bungling then makes me wonder if he has a stake in Parler, now, like Bongino does.
Why didn't he just post it as a downloadable word document, .pdf, etc. on his main webpage, if he wanted to get it out to as many Americans as easily as possible.
No. He put a bunch of resistance points in between, one being registration to a new service that is possibly giving out/selling equity to popular figures.
It stunk a little bit like grifting, from someone with intellect and resources (wealth, employees, interns, contractors, volunteers) to do a lot better job. I am sure it was just innocent incompetence, though, and he did provide the letter in defense of Trump. Much more than RINOs, and many Trump voters are doing, and he claimed no copyright. Both commendable acts.
Another truncated letter behind a log in wall? Also not printable? Too long to text? Work on the basics people. Every resistance point decreases participation.
Incorrect, has been discussed in previous threads. Even if it were true, which it is not, that would address only one of several resistance points I mentioned, which is not even all of them.
You could have just posted it. I'm just sharing info...
Dear Senator,
I request you exercise your Constitutional and statutory authority to object to the certification of any elector from any state that refuses to allow a meaningful audit of the November general election for electors to the Presidency, which must include: 1) a re-canvass of the vote that authorizes independent confirmation of a signature match using the same standards the same election officials use for nomination petitions, recall petitions, and initiative petitions; 2) publishing of the ballots for the world to review and observe, as states promised when they wrote large taxpayer checks to election machine companies like Dominion and others; and 3) audited review of the voter rolls to insure only qualified voters cast ballots for electors to the Presidency. If a state refuses to allow an honest audit of the vote, then I request you object to the certification of any electors from that state which has refused such an audit. At present, this includes the electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
There is reason for my concern. The state legislatures in the respective states chose a method for choosing electors to the Presidency that cabined who qualified to vote, constricted the manner in which a vote could be cast, and circumscribed how the vote could be counted. Many of the restrictions and requirements for each of those three were not followed by several of the states in question. President Carter warned in 2005 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. The New York Times agreed in 2012 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. Jurists, experts, and election officials all concurred that mass mail-in balloting posed the greatest risk of fraud. We just had the biggest absentee-ballot driven election in American history. Yet, the very safety guardrails of this election were systemically and systematically removed, often without the assent or consent of the state legislatures, despite the express promise and explicit protection of the Electors Clause to the Constitution. Midnight counts outside the meaningful observation of poll-watchers. 11% signature mismatches according to the Democratic expert in the election contest in Arizona. Votes from dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents found in the research of Matt Braynard and Richard Baris. Is it really too much to ask that states publish the ballots they promised to publish? Is it really too much to ask that states allow an independently confirmed signature match, at least to a statistically significant sample, of the absentee ballots? Is it really too much to ask for the states to affirm that only those qualified to vote cast ballots for the Presidency?
The Supreme Court directed any remedy to you, and Congress, when it declined to hear the case brought by the state of Texas, a suit joined by the Attorneys General for 18 states representing more than 100 million Americans, 126 members of Congress, high ranking state legislators from the objectionable elections of the states at issue, and public interest advocacy groups representing millions of Americans. I ask that you do me the small favor of simply objecting to electors under the circumstances herein described. At a minimum, it can give confidence to me, and more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that our concerns about this election were taken seriously and meaningfully addressed in the only place the courts have directed remedy can occur: the halls of Congress.
The Constitutional conscience of the country depends upon the choices you make. Many thanks for your kind attention to these critical concerns.
Link https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/285794/senator-letter-draft
Dear Senator,
I request you exercise your Constitutional and statutory authority to object to the certification of any elector from any state that refuses to allow a meaningful audit of the November general election for electors to the Presidency, which must include: 1) a re-canvass of the vote that authorizes independent confirmation of a signature match using the same standards the same election officials use for nomination petitions, recall petitions, and initiative petitions; 2) publishing of the ballots for the world to review and observe, as states promised when they wrote large taxpayer checks to election machine companies like Dominion and others; and 3) audited review of the voter rolls to insure only qualified voters cast ballots for electors to the Presidency. If a state refuses to allow an honest audit of the vote, then I request you object to the certification of any electors from that state which has refused such an audit. At present, this includes the electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
There is reason for my concern. The state legislatures in the respective states chose a method for choosing electors to the Presidency that cabined who qualified to vote, constricted the manner in which a vote could be cast, and circumscribed how the vote could be counted. Many of the restrictions and requirements for each of those three were not followed by several of the states in question. President Carter warned in 2005 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. The New York Times agreed in 2012 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. Jurists, experts, and election officials all concurred that mass mail-in balloting posed the greatest risk of fraud. We just had the biggest absentee-ballot driven election in American history. Yet, the very safety guardrails of this election were systemically and systematically removed, often without the assent or consent of the state legislatures, despite the express promise and explicit protection of the Electors Clause to the Constitution. Midnight counts outside the meaningful observation of poll-watchers. 11% signature mismatches according to the Democratic expert in the election contest in Arizona. Votes from dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents found in the research of Matt Braynard and Richard Baris. Is it really too much to ask that states publish the ballots they promised to publish? Is it really too much to ask that states allow an independently confirmed signature match, at least to a statistically significant sample, of the absentee ballots? Is it really too much to ask for the states to affirm that only those qualified to vote cast ballots for the Presidency?
The Supreme Court directed any remedy to you, and Congress, when it declined to hear the case brought by the state of Texas, a suit joined by the Attorneys General for 18 states representing more than 100 million Americans, 126 members of Congress, high ranking state legislators from the objectionable elections of the states at issue, and public interest advocacy groups representing millions of Americans. I ask that you do me the small favor of simply objecting to electors under the circumstances herein described. At a minimum, it can give confidence to me, and more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that our concerns about this election were taken seriously and meaningfully addressed in the only place the courts have directed remedy can occur: the halls of Congress.
The Constitutional conscience of the country depends upon the choices you make. Many thanks for your kind attention to these critical concerns.
Thank You,
XXX A Simple American
You were just sharing info in the beginning. When I shared info about the problems with it, you stopped sharing info and started arguing. Then when I shared MORE info, and pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, you got defensive. Let's be honest, pede. I don't want to fight with you. We have a common goal. However, Barnes' letter, and his impotent attempt to "distribute" it, truncated, behind a login, unlinkable, unprintable (not a downloadable file), (too long to text), etc...Instead of acknowledging these points of resistance (each point of resistance will decrease participation by some amount) you focused on ONE, that you were not even right about, then got mad at ME for not fixing it.
Barnes, at least, is doing SOMETHING. He, like you, can't be faulted for that. But, Barnes has tremendous resources. When you make a mistake, it is easily forgiven. When Barnes does, as pompous as he is, and as well-funded as he is, makes a bungling attempt and puts it behind a registration login, I have to doubt his commitment, competence, or wonder if he is using it as a promotional gimmick to boost Parler (which is I think where it was posted behind a registration login). The bungling then makes me wonder if he has a stake in Parler, now, like Bongino does.
Why didn't he just post it as a downloadable word document, .pdf, etc. on his main webpage, if he wanted to get it out to as many Americans as easily as possible.
https://www.barneslawllp.com/
No. He put a bunch of resistance points in between, one being registration to a new service that is possibly giving out/selling equity to popular figures.
It stunk a little bit like grifting, from someone with intellect and resources (wealth, employees, interns, contractors, volunteers) to do a lot better job. I am sure it was just innocent incompetence, though, and he did provide the letter in defense of Trump. Much more than RINOs, and many Trump voters are doing, and he claimed no copyright. Both commendable acts.
I never got mad, I just misread it originally and didn't realize it until your second response.
I'm not interested in revisionist history.
Another truncated letter behind a log in wall? Also not printable? Too long to text? Work on the basics people. Every resistance point decreases participation.
I believe it is only truncated because the last bit of info you would need to add yourself based on the current circumstances.
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4gYT4uT/letter-to-send-to-your-senator-f/
Incorrect, has been discussed in previous threads. Even if it were true, which it is not, that would address only one of several resistance points I mentioned, which is not even all of them.
You could have just posted it. I'm just sharing info...
Dear Senator,
I request you exercise your Constitutional and statutory authority to object to the certification of any elector from any state that refuses to allow a meaningful audit of the November general election for electors to the Presidency, which must include: 1) a re-canvass of the vote that authorizes independent confirmation of a signature match using the same standards the same election officials use for nomination petitions, recall petitions, and initiative petitions; 2) publishing of the ballots for the world to review and observe, as states promised when they wrote large taxpayer checks to election machine companies like Dominion and others; and 3) audited review of the voter rolls to insure only qualified voters cast ballots for electors to the Presidency. If a state refuses to allow an honest audit of the vote, then I request you object to the certification of any electors from that state which has refused such an audit. At present, this includes the electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
There is reason for my concern. The state legislatures in the respective states chose a method for choosing electors to the Presidency that cabined who qualified to vote, constricted the manner in which a vote could be cast, and circumscribed how the vote could be counted. Many of the restrictions and requirements for each of those three were not followed by several of the states in question. President Carter warned in 2005 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. The New York Times agreed in 2012 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. Jurists, experts, and election officials all concurred that mass mail-in balloting posed the greatest risk of fraud. We just had the biggest absentee-ballot driven election in American history. Yet, the very safety guardrails of this election were systemically and systematically removed, often without the assent or consent of the state legislatures, despite the express promise and explicit protection of the Electors Clause to the Constitution. Midnight counts outside the meaningful observation of poll-watchers. 11% signature mismatches according to the Democratic expert in the election contest in Arizona. Votes from dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents found in the research of Matt Braynard and Richard Baris. Is it really too much to ask that states publish the ballots they promised to publish? Is it really too much to ask that states allow an independently confirmed signature match, at least to a statistically significant sample, of the absentee ballots? Is it really too much to ask for the states to affirm that only those qualified to vote cast ballots for the Presidency?
The Supreme Court directed any remedy to you, and Congress, when it declined to hear the case brought by the state of Texas, a suit joined by the Attorneys General for 18 states representing more than 100 million Americans, 126 members of Congress, high ranking state legislators from the objectionable elections of the states at issue, and public interest advocacy groups representing millions of Americans. I ask that you do me the small favor of simply objecting to electors under the circumstances herein described. At a minimum, it can give confidence to me, and more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that our concerns about this election were taken seriously and meaningfully addressed in the only place the courts have directed remedy can occur: the halls of Congress.
The Constitutional conscience of the country depends upon the choices you make. Many thanks for your kind attention to these critical concerns.
Thank You,
XXX A Simple American
I think he wrote it the day that the list of alternate electors wasn't finalized.