1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

The response from PA is now posted. Must have hit right at the deadline.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just updated search page and it shows they filed. Must have done it right at the deadline.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

I assume it's eastern since the court is in DC. But the the order shown on the court search page (linked) doesn't specify it just says "due December 8, by 9:00 a.m."

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not sure what would happen. I assume the court would proceed without them.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Written many. Only got a response to the first one the first week in November. He was elected to be the next speaker of the MI house. He will be the last Republican speaker if they don't right this election. It's getting real hard to be civil in these emails.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Will enjoy reading the whole doc.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

No.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/election-integrity-watchdog-amistad-project-december-8-deadline-for-selection-of-electors-does-not-apply-to-disputed-states-301186795.html

"The authoritative research paper breaks down the history of Electoral College deadlines and makes clear that this election's December 8 and December 14 deadlines for the selection of Electors, the assembly of the Electoral College, and the tallying of its votes, respectively, are not only elements of of a 72-year old federal statute with zero Constitutional basis..."

3
BeingFree 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lol - "lesser of two evils". Evil is evil. Anyway I have full faith in my brothers and sisters in Georgia to make up their own minds.

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sidney Powell's lawsuit status. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/

At most this is a discussion of what the City of Detroit (one of many defendants) alleged in one of their filings. No big deal.

The Judge has yet to make a ruling on any of the lawsuits motions afaik.

4
BeingFree 4 points ago +4 / -0

Nice. I pulled my credit card donation to John James the day he conceded. His fraudulent solicitation said he'd fight the purported election result then two weeks later and after no action he concedes. Not sure I'll ever contribute to another pol.

I dare the bastard to try and collect.

following from my cc co.

Hi, xxxxxxx,

We wanted to let you know we're still working on your $100.00 dispute.

We've contacted the merchant, they have until 01/21/21 to get back to us. We'll let you know if any additional information is needed.

We included the below transaction details for the dispute on account ending in xxxx for your reference.

Transaction Details Transaction Date: 11/09/20 Transaction Amount: $100.00 Merchant/Description: WINRED* JOHN JAMES 8888730

Dispute Details Dispute Date: 11/25/20 Dispute Amount: $100.00 Dispute ID: D-xxxxxxxxxxx

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://micourt.courts.michigan.gov/virtualcourtroomdirectory/

Link (scroll to page bottom) to the courtroom (Justice Kenny) zoom feed. scheduled for 3pm today.

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

From Sidney Powell Michigan lawsuit King v. Witmer:

8.The design and features of the Dominion software do not permit a simple audit to reveal its misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes. First, the system's central accumulator does not include a protected real-time audit log that maintains the date and time stamps of all significant election events. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs. Essentially this allows an unauthorized user the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify, or remove log entries, causing the machine to log election events that do not reflect actual voting tabulations—or more specifically, do not reflect the actual votes of or the will of the people. See Exh. 107, August 24, 2020 Declaration of HarriHursti, ¶¶45-48).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/1/king-v-whitmer/

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol - spot on. These should not be attributed to Michigan. The Michigan list is bad enough.

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is not from the affidavit filed in Michigan. Are you retarded?

Here is the case that has been filed in Michigan. Mr. Ramsland's affidavit is attached as item 14. Please quote from this document. That should be easy for a sharp WaPo reader but you can't because what you're asserting isn't in there. At this point it seems you're just being obtuse.

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

So you can't quote from the filed affidavit because it isn't there is it. If you want to believe the WaPo knock yourself out.

Everyone of the townships presented in the MI filed case affidavit by Mr Ramsland is located in Michigan. You need to quote the asserted errors or stop spreading disinformation.

1
BeingFree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well why does your "official" data state 73% and 82% for precincts 1 and 2 respectively and yet the numbers of votes cast in the presidential race presented right below those numbers indicate 108% and 114% of the registered voters cast ballots? I think the county data is fucked up. Not unexpected when there is such widespread fraud. I suspect there is a good factual basis for the data presented in the affidavit.

2
BeingFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which "districts" mentioned in the affidavit are not located in Michigan? Maybe I missed it but I don't see any. As far as I can tell every precinct and/or township he mentions is located in Michigan. Please post the specific quote from the affidavit to which you are asserting a "significant" error. Would like very much to find out.

This is the filed affidavit I'm working from: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/1/14/king-v-whitmer/

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›