Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Edit: adding tldr: Someone wanted to stop the certification - that's the only thing this was about. They wasn't asking for an audit - just asking to stop the certification. Judges basically said "the count got certified so we won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit".

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Edit: adding tldr: Someone wanted to stop the certification - that's the only thing this was about. They wasn't asking for an audit - just asking to stop the certification. Judges basically said "the count got certified so we won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit".

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Edit: adding tldr: someone wanted to stop the certification, and judges basically said "we didn't look into your claims, and neither did the trial judge, but if they're true that's not good -- the count got certified just now so we can't/won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit"

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Edit: adding tldr: *someone wanted to stop the certification, and judges basically said "we didn't look into your claims, and neither did the trial judge, but if they're true that's not good -- the count got certified just now so we can't/won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit"

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.

Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.

Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.

Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.

Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.

Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.

Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.

Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).

Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.

Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.

This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english:

Not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied. Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit. Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit. Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought. Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already. Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible. Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes. Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS). Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough. Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate. This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.

David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”

Am attorney...

Translating this into english at the moment. Feel free to upvote so I don't get buried as this gets more popular. I'll be a few more minutes.