As a legal term, it is describe in the link of the post, or, for example, from Cornell Law School:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto
According to this description, it is used "to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office"
This is a way to present evidence that, so far, has only been ignored rather than refuted.
Do legal-pedes agree?
The title should have read "Message from Hon (sic) Sean Casten ...."
Uh Oh, they just played the National Anthem. Doesn't that get us cancelled now? :)
Background of who does what when.
King George Bad:
"Although the Founders understandably feared the emergence of an all-powerful Executive based on their experience with King George, they were not fearful of expanded legislative representation, which King George had denied them."
No reason to hide if you did nothing wrong.
Rudy MAY have a question for him!
"I don't take questions from activists."
My Cousin Vinny!
Thank you. That is another good example of this technique. Is it not too much of a stretch to say that the two topics are related: covid and vote counting.
The conclusion is "...this is extremely dangerous for democracy." I agree with that, if the "this" is reading from a script and pretending that is the result of your independent journalism.
Original cropped from https://www.loc.gov/item/2018663035/
Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. XV, no. 771 (1871 October 7), p. 944.
Here are some more facts, and there is a bit more in the article.
- In Nevada, poll workers fabricated proof of residence data for illegal voters.
- In Michigan, backdating ballots with no signatures
One poll worker is a former AG. This helps it be more "substantial" evidence of fraud.
"All we are asking for...."
"I'm glad you asked me that question" -- where have we heard THAT before?
Another sign: Disdain for Critical Race Theory
They also did not denounce White Blood Cell Supremacy!
...but they got the RIGHT ANSWER
It is a cover letter, and points to many resources. This letter has been endorsed by the laboratory's leadership, so it seems to come under the OMB guidance. It does not say "critical race theory" specifically. Therefore, the recent OMB guidance could be easily ignored unless we point out specifics in the document and referenced material that are problematic.
Dozens of leaders have endorsed this document. We can help them understand why it is wrong.
What counts? Persuasive descriptions!
The Best Ever since Yesterday!
Nice summary of the state of the case.
Downloaded for safe keeping
Blanche, looking forward to hearing your side of the story!
Pede's, one and all, please join her in prayer.
Interesting. Whether it would prevail is a great point. As a step, it seems a way to have a hearing on the evidence.