BLATANT SABATOGE OF TRUMP ELECTORS BY GOP ATTORNEY RON HICKS IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEARING.

Tomorrow morning at 10 A.M., Allegheny County voting machines will probably be recanvassed - despite a strict Election Code statutory deadline having passed well before the petition to recanvass was filed. This political hijack of law and justice is happening because RON HICKS - the attorney representing the Republican Party in Allegheny County made intentionally losing arguments, and he should be disbarred, if not put in prison.

The rats have their backs against the wall, snarling, grasping, gnawing away. They have protection from the judicial branch and they must know where the vote hacking bodies are buried. If there are saboteur counterparts in the county election boards - charged with maintaining the electronic voting machines - who are as ruthlessly opposed to Trump being President as the saboteur attorneys grossly representing his interests in the election contest and recount cases, then we are headed for civil war.

An emergency stay in Allegheny County tomorrow at 8:30 A.M. -  when county offices open - on behalf of at least one of the Trump candidate-electors, may be the last chance to save the republic from an all out civil war should they manufacture a voting machine crisis.

I offer the following legal briefing to exhibit the gross sabotage perpetrated by Ron Hicks upon twenty fairly elected Presidential Elector-Candidates, and to educate the public at large, so that they will know, should this judicially blessed fraudulent recount coup d'etat succeed, that it is not by the rule of law, and it will not deserve our respect.

LEGAL DISCUSSION - INTRODUCTION

Let's start at the beginning of a law suit, in this case that suit is called a "Petition to Recanvass". You canvass the votes on a voting machine. You count paper ballots. In Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, they use voting machines, so the recount is technically a recanvass.

There is a huge body of law in Pennsylvania called the Election Code. It's deadlines are not fluid at all. In order to start a recanvass, you must go to the Code and find the section that governs your particular plea for justice. In this case, the Jill Stein petitioners submitted their papers to the county board of elections for a recanvass of voting machines in certain precincts. Divisions of voting areas include the state (or Commonwealth as PA prefers); then counties; then districts; then precincts.

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

There are two ways voters can initiate a recount or recanvass in Pennsylvania: before their county board of elections according to Article 14 of the Election Code; or before the county court of common pleas under Article 17. The deadline is five days longer if you file in court, or six days longer, if the fifth day falls on a Sunday or holiday, as it did this year.

On November 28, 2016, voters initiated recanvass petitions by filing papers with the Allegheny County Board of Elections - not the court. We shall discuss the actual filing dates later, as the applicable petition initiation deadline will order life or death for the case. Either you file before the deadline, or you can never file at all.

On November 29th, Allegheny County’s Elections Division announced that it would recanvass voting machines in 52 voting districts, after at least three voters in each of those precincts filed an affidavit.

Petitioners filed before the board of elections, so they had a much shorter deadline to meet. Also note that having filed their petition with the board, any appeals taken with regard to the board's decision to begin or deny the recanvass would still be heard in the court of common pleas.

So far, none of the above is the subject of dispute. Now let's examine the applicable deadline statute.

THE STATUTE: 1404(e) aka  25 P.S. 3154(e):

Here I will post the entire block of code, so you have it to refer to. Then I will discuss it below and break it down in simple terms:

(e) Provision for Recount or Recanvass of Vote.--Whenever it shall appear that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any election district, or, upon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein, or of its own motion or under subsection (g), the county board shall at any time prior to the completion of the computation of all of the returns for the county, summon the election officers of the district, and said officers, in the presence of said board, shall conduct a recount or recanvass of all ballots cast.  Before making such recount or recanvass, the said board shall give notice in writing to the proper custodian of voting machines, and to each candidate, and to the county chairman of each party or political body, affected by the recount or recanvass;  and each such candidate may be present in person, or by attorney, and each of such parties, or bodies, may send two representatives to be present at such recount or recanvass. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3154.html#sthash.CCZ7HTax.dpuf

§ 3154

§ 3154

§ 3154

 1404(e) Provision for Recount or Recanvass of Vote.--Whenever it shall appear that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any election district, or, upon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein, or of its own motion or under subsection (g), the county board shall at any time prior to the completion of the computation of all of the returns for the county, summon the election officers of the district, and said officers, in the presence of said board, shall conduct a recount or recanvass of all ballots cast.  Before making such recount or recanvass, the said board shall give notice in writing to the proper custodian of voting machines, and to each candidate, and to the county chairman of each party or political body, affected by the recount or recanvass;  and each such candidate may be present in person, or by attorney, and each of such parties, or bodies, may send two representatives to be present at such recount or recanvass.

First note that the county board itself may initiate a recanvass whenever there appears to be a discrepancy in the returns of any election district. A discrepancy occurs, for example, when there are more votes than registered voters; stuff like that. No discrepancies were found anywhere in Pennsylvania for the 2016 Presidential Election, so no recanvass was initiated by the Allegheny County Board, or any other county board.

Also note that under subsection (g), the county board itself may motion for a recount. More on 1404(g) later - this is the automatic recount provision that kicks in anytime a candidate wins by less than 0.5%. Subsection (g) has its own deadline. It passed on Nov. 17th, and it cannot be extended, but we shall return to that later, as it provides a crucial context for conclusively establishing the deadline that was sacrificed to the sabotage of Ron Hicks, who appears to have been hand chosen by them to protect the recanvass heist set to start at 10 A.M. tomorrow.

Returns, as defined in the Code, are pieces of paper with the vote tallies from each district written upon them. A district "return" would include entries for the vote count from each precinct in the district. Also note that all procedures for handling, tallying, sealing, and transporting the returns are specifically laid out in the Code.

THE DEADLINE FOR A PETITIONER INITIATED RECANVASS UNDER ARTICLE 14.

The third manner of initiating a recanvass under 1404(e) is by voters taking action strictly regulated by the statute:

"...[U]pon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein,...the county board shall at any time prior to the completion of the computation of all of the returns for the county, summon the election officers of the district, and said officers, in the presence of said board, shall conduct a recount or recanvass of all ballots cast."

VERIFIED BY AFFIDAVIT

I have previously addressed the "verified by affidavit" requirement in depth with regard to the recently withdrawn statewide election contest. But a sharp attack on the failure of Ron Hicks to win on this point must be included herein as well.

The petition must include a sworn statement by petitioners that "an error" was committed with regard to the returns. Since the county board found no discrepancy, petitioners, if they wish to get a recount, must have knowledge of facts that allow them to swear, under penalty of perjury, that "an error" has taken place in the return sheets submitted by the districts to the county board. If you have no facts that indicate "an error" in the returns, then it is illegal to swear that "an error" has been committed.

It's not enough to wonder if perhaps maybe I think it's possible an error has been made. Errors are made all the time, right? So, since errors are made all the time, then it's plausible an error was made in Allegheny County on the returns. You know what? I think I'll take an oath and challenge Donald Trump's election because, hey now, I feel it's the right thing to do, and I just don't like the guy, and errors are made all the time, so I deserve to swear an oath that an error occurred because Jill Stein wants me to do just that.

Excuse me. No. That isn't how it works at all. A sworn affidavit means you have facts, damn it. It means you saw something, or found something, or possess evidence that establishes "an error". And hey now, by the way, everyone of you who trusted this Constitution hating pied piper and signed a sworn affidavit that "an error" did, in fact, occur... you're guilty of felony perjury, and you may end up in prison if the judicial coup d'etat fails and Trump takes over.

A hypothetical will make hay of this quickly:

Let's say you are a big strong man that was convicted of assault, and that you have recently got out of prison. You have found God and you spent the night in prayerful thanks for having this second chance to live a good life.

The next evening somebody is found on your street severely injured from an assault.

You didn't do it. You were home praying.

One of your neighbors knows about your conviction. And this neighbor thinks:

"That guy just got out of prison for assault. He's a big dude. He could have beaten that other guy to a pulp. I mean, it's totally plausible. Once a criminal, always a criminal, right? And the other guy was so small, the big guy could definitely pull this off. Crime rates are high, and he's never gonna change. He did it!"

Your neighbor calls the police and says, "He did it!" The police arrest you. Maybe they don't like the color of your skin, or your tats, and they think, "Yeah, this guy did it. Book him, Dano."

They take you to trial and your neighbor testifies, "Yes, he did it."

Your neighbor has no right to accuse you of anything. He saw nothing, heard nothing, has no evidence that you did anything wrong. All he has is a hypothetical idea that it was plausible you could have assaulted the man. What Jill Stein's petitioners are doing is the same thing.

Our society will break down if we do not have integrity maintained as to sworn statements. Just because it's plausible that you could possibly commit a crime, does not give anyone the right to swear in court that you did. Your neighbor is guilty of perjury. 

And unless the petitioners - herded into election boards all over Pennsylvania by Jill Svengali Stein - actually did have knowledge of an actual error having been committed in the returns, then each and every one of them is guilty of felony perjury, and could potentially end up in prison for this.

Now apply this same analysis to Stein's failed contest election, wherein more than one hundred citizen voters exposed themselves to misdemeanor falsification charges in the petition, when they verified that the election in Pennsylvania was illegal, having absolutely no evidence to so verify. How is it even possible the Commonwealth Court granted that case a hearing?

These recounts are making a mockery of our legal system. Every attorney reading these words knows that if he were to ask a client to swear an oath that they had direct knowledge of illegal activity, when the client had nothing but a feeling that the person accused "could possibly have done it", we would be disbarred. And a judge who, from examining the statements, knew that my client had no such direct knowledge, but who allowed the statement as sworn testimony, should be disrobed. It's no different than what has taken place in the state of Pennsylvania regarding this recount fraud. 

What the hell have we allowed to happen here in America? It's now alright to swear an oath in court as long as the politics involved are in vogue? No. This cannot remain unchecked. The sanctity of our legal system is based upon taking an oath or affirmation subject to criminal penalties. We cannot allow what Jill Stein and the cabal pushing her out upon us are about to do. We cannot let them steal this election. 

"AN ERROR"

You may have noticed that I kept putting "an error" in quotation marks. That's because 1404(e) strictly limits any petition to recount/recanvass to issues related to an error committed in the returns. Notice that this section does not allow a petition to recount/recanvass for anything other than an error. Websters Dictionary defines "error" as follows:

a :  an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior
b :  an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy


An error is unintentional. Fraud is intentional. You cannot get a recount under 1404(e) by alleging election fraud. You must allege "an error" was committed in the returns. The "returns" are simply sheets of paper whereupon the precinct by precinct vote counts are "duly recorded". So, the error must be in the recording of the vote count onto the return sheet, according to the Code:

"...[U]pon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein,..."

A petition to recount being allowed by way of 1404(e), brought before the county board, must allege a very specific unintentional error. The county board has jurisdiction over that, and only that as regarding voter-initiated recount/recanvass petitions. The 1404(e) recount jurisdiction goes no further, and therefore has nothing to do with possible hacking, or intrusions into the vote machines. Any petition alleging such criminal activity is obviously in the wrong venue.

Only Article 17 recount petitions may be brought for "fraud or error." But that section of the Election Code requires that you file your verified petition in a court of common pleas. This is because fraud is a crime. And if you allege fraud before the court, you are also referring to criminal charges stated directly in Article 18 of the Election Code. Courts handle criminal matters, not county boards of election.

Jill Stein's recount efforts are all about intentional election fraud, hacking, etc. All of her actions have argued that illegal "intrusions" into the voting systems might have taken place. Take a look at the petition filed on behalf of her election contest. There's nothing about unintentional errors.

The county board has no jurisdiction under Article 14 for any of these election fraud petitions, because they do not allege facts concerning unintended errors. 

Furthermore, the hypothetical concerns that Stein's robot-petitioners have offered are also not facts, and they do not meet the requirements to establish jurisdiction under Article 17. Regardless, petitions for recounts based upon fraud must be brought before the court of common pleas, so each and every petition to recount/recanvass now pending before county boards must be quashed, and Jill Stein's crooked cabal of freak lawyers need to be disciplined by having their licenses taken away. And the judges who allowed this crap to stain our nation's character need to be disrobed.

RON HICKS HAS SABOTAGED DONALD TRUMP'S PENNSYLVANIA ELECTORS.

So why didn't Ron Hicks - a person who has served as an election judge for the Republican Committee   in Allegheny County - argue any of these points before the court on Friday? He knows damn well the strict, monotonous, step by step, procedures election officials go through as dictated by the monolithic Election Code each election night. He knows no discrepancies were found by the county boards. And he knows with absolute certainty that none of these zombie petitioners has any knowledge whatsoever concerning "an error" committed in the returns by trained district officials.

Ron Hicks, and every filthy lawyer involved with these petitions - on both sides of the dispute - along with the scheming judges who sanctioned them - know that failure to plead the strict requirements of the statute is a fatal death sentence for any petition so devoid of substance.

Ron Hicks should be disbarred, not because he made "an error", but because he perpetrated a fraud on the election, Donald Trump and the American People who chose him in a landslide electoral victory that was probably a lot bigger than we will ever know, considering who we now know is guarding the ballot boxes.

 Oh wait. You thought I forgot about the whole deadline is certification - no wait - deadline is computation... no hold on a second now its computation that counts but only when it is signed on the fourth leap year day of the second rotunda special solar eclispe deadline fiasco. No, I didn't forget.

Ron Hicks argued that the deadline to file an Article 14 recount petition was November 23rd. Add that to his sabotage as well.

The deadline for initiating an Article 14 recount/recanvass petition was November 15th;

The deadline for initiating an Article 17 recount/recanvass petition was November 21st;

The deadline for initiating an Article 1404(g) automatic recount was November 17th, and it aint coming back no matter how many votes you pull out of thin air.

I will publish part two of this briefing tomorrow and it will kill this deadline issue once and for all. Book it. One way or another -

DONALD TRUMP WILL BE SWORN IN AS THE 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

To be continued,

Ren Jander, J.D.

(e) Provision for Recount or Recanvass of Vote.--Whenever it shall appear that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any election district, or, upon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein, or of its own motion or under subsection (g), the county board shall at any time prior to the completion of the computation of all of the returns for the county, summon the election officers of the district, and said officers, in the presence of said board, shall conduct a recount or recanvass of all ballots cast.  Before making such recount or recanvass, the said board shall give notice in writing to the proper custodian of voting machines, and to each candidate, and to the county chairman of each party or political body, affected by the recount or recanvass;  and each such candidate may be present in person, or by attorney, and each of such parties, or bodies, may send two representatives to be present at such recount or recanvass. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3154.html#sthash.CCZ7HTax.dpu