Thursday, December 1, 2016

JILL STEIN'S FRAUDULENT RECOUNT AND ELECTION CONTEST EFFORTS IN PENNSYLVANIA ARE EXPOSED AND DEFEATED BY CONTROLLING CASE LAW PRECEDENTS: part 1.

1. ALL VOTER INITIATED RECOUNT PETITIONS ARE TIME-BARRED.

[Update 12:56 AM 12.2.16 - can inform my readers that the Trump team is fully aware of this blog's analysis and research. Thanks to those responsible. A top crew of attorneys are getting ready for battle. Keep the comments coming with info you think is relevant. This is now a legal war. Part 2 in the morning.]

Pennsylvania statutory code and case law perfectly agree that no viable "recount" petitions have been filed in Pennsylvania, so all must be quashed. The various counties that have delayed their certifications of the election - so that these time-barred petitions may improperly proceed - are grossly misinterpreting the Pennsylvania Election Code, which required all initial recount/recanvass voter-petitions to have been filed in Pennsylvania no later than November 21, 2016. Recounts are dead. Book it.

"Jurisdiction to resolve election disputes is not of common law origin but is founded entirely upon statute and cannot be extended beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly.   See In re Granting Malt Beverage Licenses, 331 Pa. 536, 538, 1 A.2d 670, 671 (1938)."  Rinaldi v. Ferret, 941 A.2d 73 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).

This means that if the deadlines have passed, they are gone forever. And they are. The case cited above, Rinaldi v. Ferrett, is a recent holding of the Commonwealth Court, the same court Jill Stein has filed her election contest in. I suggest you read that case top to bottom so as to fully comprehend the following part:

"As noted above, our jurisdictional case law informs of two principles, both relevant here. First, only those procedures specified by the Code invoke the jurisdiction of the board or court and, second, those provisions are strictly construed and such jurisdiction will attach only if they are followed in all respects. Without the first principle, the second would be rendered meaningless. Consequently, Rinaldi's petition was fatally defective..."

Now look at the footnote (7) attached to that quote:

"[T]he failure to strictly follow the procedural requirements under the Election Code renders Rinaldi's petition fatally flawed so as to deprive common pleas of jurisdiction..."

As we shall see, all voter initiated recount petitions failed miserably to strictly follow the procedural requirements under the Election Code and are also fatally flawed.

There are exactly two ways to petition for a voter-initiated recount or recanvass. (A recount examines paper ballots, whereas a recanvass examines machine/electronic votes.) Let's revisit the Rinaldi case for a perfect explanation:

"In considering the jurisdictional objection to Rinaldi's petition, we note the procedures and associated requirements provided in the Election Code for challenging the accuracy of a vote count. First, a request to the board of election for a recount may be made pursuant to Section 1404(e) of the Code, 25 P.S. § 3154(e), which particularly pertinent to the present case, calls for filing of a petition by at least three voters who verify by affidavit that an error has been committed in the computation of the returns."

Article XIV of the Election Code contains one of two ways voter-petitioners can initiate a recount/recanvass. Section 1404(e) requires a petition before a county board of elections by at least three voters who verify by sworn affidavit to facts they claim show an error has been made in the computation of returns. This method of filing would had to have been filed by November 15th, 2016, according to the statute, which states:

"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...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."

According to Section 1404(f) of the Code, the computation of the returns of each county must be submitted to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by 5 P.M. on the Tuesday following the election. This year, that statutorily critical date fell on November 15th. A petition to recount before the county election boards under 1404(e) had to be filed "at any time prior to" 5 P.M. on November 15th.

Therefore, every petition for recount filed before the county boards after that date is now time-barred forever, including Allegheny County, Philadelphia County, etc. No exceptions. The county boards are powerless to entertain any recount petitions as of November 15th at 5 P.M. More from Rinaldi on this:

"Rinaldi's petition was addressed to the board of elections, not to the court of common pleas.   Therefore, we consider it to be a request for a recount pursuant to Section 1404(e) of the Code, 25 P.S. § 3154(e). However, it is accompanied by unnotarized verifications by only Rinaldi himself and James Peperno. Thus, the petition is flawed in the number of elector verifications and in the form of those verifications. Hence, we conclude that the petition does not satisfy the procedural requirements..."

The second way to initiate a voter-petition recount is via Article XVII. Let's go back to Rinaldi:

"[A] request may be made to common pleas for a recount/recanvass of the votes. Such a request must be made within five days after completion of the board's computation and, most relevant to the present case, must be made by a petition verified by three qualified electors of the district and accompanied by a cash deposit or bond.5"

The footnote (5) attached to this text goes deeper into the statute:

"A petition for recount directed to common pleas is subject to the requirements of Sections 1701-1703 of the Code, 25 P.S. § 3261-3263...It shall not be necessary for the petitioners to specify in their petition the particular act of fraud or error which they believe to have been committed, nor to offer evidence to substantiate the allegations of their petition..."

There's a lot going on here, so let's break it down. Article XVII recount/recanvass voter-petitions also require three voters, but the standard of filing here is easier to meet than in Article XIV, since no affidavit alleging specifics needs to be attached. Article XVII only requires a good faith belief that there was fraud or error in the computation, but the petition must be filed before the court of common pleas in your county, not before the board of elections. The deadline is also longer, five days after November 15th. But regardless, this bird flew on November 21st, and she isn't coming back either.

I'm just curious about the substance of these petitions being filed haphazardly all over Pennsylvania. I haven't heard one report concerning a voter-initiated petition filed before the board of elections in any Pennsylvania county that included an affidavit by voter-petitioners setting forth actual facts alleging specific errors were made in the counting of votes. So, these petitions before the county boards are not only time-barred, but they further fail to meet the statutory requirements if they did not attach sworn affidavits.

So why are counties such as Allegheny and Philadelphia purporting to have jurisdiction? The county boards most certainly do not have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. And if they do, it will signal a rogue election hijack is underway.

I know that the word "certification" is bouncing between many ears right now, because you've been terribly misled by the press, pundits, partisans and amateur election law specialists who all got it wrong, or simply lied to you. It's been floated out to the public that a voter-initiated petition can be brought before the county boards or courts as long as the petitions are filed any time before the county has certified its election results. We've all heard that Allegheny County has decided to hold off its certification until the recount petitions are adjudicated.

Bunk. Complete utter bunk. Fed to you by a rotten tube filled with lies.

There is actually another deadline in the Pennsylvania Election Code that allows a recount/recanvass petition right up until the county officially certifies its election returns. But that later deadline pertains to secondary recount/recanvass petitions which are only allowed to be filed after the initial Article XIV or XVII recount or recanvass has revealed fraud or error in the votes being recounted. It then may be necessary to recount in further precincts that were not included in the original petitions. This would require a secondary petition to recount, and the deadline for those secondary petitions ends when the county board finally certifies its election returns. That deadline cannot be used to initiate a petition to recount before the county board or courts of common pleas.

Initial petitions had to be filed this year before 5 P.M. on November 15th or by November 21st. If you failed to do so, you are now too late. If you did file on time, however, and your petition to recount was successful, then you were granted a recount or recanvass, and if that revealed fraud or error, you may then issue a secondary petition to open more precinct ballot boxes, or recanvass more machines in extra precincts. These secondary petitions must be filed, however, before the final certification of election results in your county.

This secondary deadline is found in the statutes at, 25 P.S. § 3263(b):

"(b) No order or decision of the court under the provisions of sections 1701 and 1702 of this act, shall be deemed a final adjudication regarding the results of any primary or election, so as to preclude any contest thereof under the provisions of this article, and no such order or decision shall affect the official returns of any election district, unless a petition to open the ballot boxes or to recanvass the votes on a voting machine or an electronic voting system shall have been presented before the certification of the returns of the county by the county board, or unless a contest shall have been instituted in the manner provided by this article."

Now let's visit another Commonwealth Court case to see how this all plays out in the real world. The case is,  IN RE GENERAL ELECTION FOR TP. SUP'R, 152 Pa.Commw. 590, 620 A.2d 565 (1993). The following quote is extensive, but perfectly tailored to explain all of the above:

"We next address Electors' Petition to Open Ballot Box and Recount Votes. At this juncture a brief overview of the Election Code would be helpful. Article XIV of the Code, Section 1404, regulates the procedure for counting the votes and correcting the returns. 25 P.S. § 3154. The term "return" when used in the Code, generally refers to a sheet showing the total individual votes cast for all candidates at that polling place or district...Section 1701 provides for the opening of ballot boxes, 25 P.S. § 3261; Section 1702 provides for the recanvassing of voting machines...Section 1703 was amended in 1982 to require that a petition to open a ballot box or to recanvass a voting machine must be filed no later than five days after the completion of the count. 25 P.S. § 3263(a)(1). If error or fraud is discovered the court must allow the parties another five days to file petitions to open other ballot boxes or recanvass machines before it makes final certification. 25 P.S. § 3263(a)(2). If additional petitions to recount or to recanvass are filed under this five-day provision, the court may allow, upon petition, additional boxes to be opened or machines to be recanvassed. These additional ballot boxes must be opened within four months after the election. 25 P.S. § 3261(f). If voting machines were used, the additional machines must be recanvassed within twenty days of the election. 25 P.S. § 3262(c). In both cases the action must be taken before the court makes final certification. 25 P.S. § 3263(a)(2). Final certification of the returns, however, precludes the filing of further recount or recanvass petitions.

"The Electors would have us find that, based on Section 1701(f) of the Election Code, an initial petition to open and recount may be filed within four months of the election. However, this argument misapprehends the function of this provision of the Code. The controlling time limitation, found in Section 1703 of the Code, requires that an initial petition to open and recount must be filed "no later" than five days after the completion of the canvassing of the returns...Electors failed to comply with this provision, mandating the denial of their petition.

"The Electors' interpretation of the four-month provision would render the five-day time limit for filing the initial petition to open a ballot box and for a recount completely superfluous. Such a reading of the statute contradicts the Rules of Statutory Construction which direct our Court to give effect to all provisions of a statute. Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921.

"The statute clearly requires that a petition to open a ballot box and for a recount, standing alone, must be filed no later than five days after the completion of the computation of the returns. Chase Appeal, 389 Pa. 538, 133 A.2d 824 (1957). Of course, had a previous recount petition been filed and the court found fraud or error, the Electors would have had five days after the court's ruling in which to file this petition, assuming the petition was still within the four-month limit. However, there was no previous petition filed or five-day extension granted."

So there you have it all. This final paragraph of the Commonwealth Court's holding confirms everything I have explained above. The deadlines for filing voter-initiated recount petitions in Pennsylvania have passed. Since none were timely filed, there was no recount that revealed any fraud or error in the vote count. Therefore, the secondary petition deadline that ends when the county certifies its votes is not at all relevant to the petitions now being perpetrated all over Pennsylvania by cohorts of Jill Stein.

Should any county board or court of common pleas actually grant a recount, it will be an act of revolution and anarchy, a judicial coup d'etat. 

But let's not end on a paranoid note. This final quote - from IN RE GENERAL ELECTION FOR TP. SUP'R - leads nicely into the forthcoming part 2 of this Jander Research report:

"The only other way the Electors could have petitioned to have the box opened later than five days from the completion of the computation of the returns, would be if the Electors had properly instituted an election contest."

For homework in preparation for part 2, please read the following case in it's entirety, as it perfectly illustrates why Jill Stein's complaint to contest the Pennsylvania election must fail: IN RE PHILA. MAYORALTY ELECTION CONTEST, 11 Pa. D.&C. 3d 381 (1979).

[To be continued in part 2: JILL STEIN'S PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CONTEST FILING IS STATUTORILY DEFECTIVE AND MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.]

Written, analyzed and researched by Ren Jander.

41 comments:

  1. Ren,
    Thank you for all your RESEARCH.. What is your opinion on what they going are going to do on Monday? ROGUE OR FOLLOW THE LAWS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. In paragraph 10, 12, and several after, you keep saying "December" I presume you meant to say November? As in November 15, November 21 etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU. I am so sleep deprived right now. Dont know how I am even awake. What an incredible typo. Apologies. All corrected now. Part 2 will be available in a few hours.

      Delete
  3. A creepy theory: Imagine bad guys/gals actually did attempt to hack or otherwise cheat in wis pa and mich, knowing these were the key states. And lets assume they were successful but any trail left behind only proved interference but not who was recipient of the benefit. But despite their cheating in key precincts, trump won in a landslide so big that their illegal efforts failed to overcome the true vote. So all they accomplished was making swing states much closer losses than they truly were.

    Now they know where the hack trails and other scams/bodies are buried. They also know that if the interference can be exposed, nobody will be able to tell on whose behalf the hacking/cheating was initiated.

    Now it is in their best interests to expose the cheating because if they do, with a divided popular vote and a divided nation, they can cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the outcome. Who knows what might happen in the current climate, or how electors might see themselves in history.

    This theory is straight up gangster. Be warned.

    Get my reports to the right people, folks. I am not impressed with the Trump legal team responses thus far.

    History has a funny way of creating upheaval and earth shattering change. This recount thing is a powder keg. The republic could still be put to a historical test. Go

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agreed with you about Trump Attorneys. I send this info to Roger S. Hopefully he will send to Trump attorneys

      Delete
    2. The point of Allegheny or any other county that is starting to "recanvass" - is to find something, anything, that gives them the slightest "I told you so" and grounds for further "investigation". As you have pointed out, they never should have started, but now that they have, they will be hell bent on finding something before the law prevails and their efforts get shut down.

      Delete
    3. Lawlessness I tell ya. Roger Stone did responses to me. Sad as to what they are trying to do.

      Delete
    4. Claiming "hacking" is easy, like making any other claim. But does anyone really have any idea of what that would look like? What evidence will there be that a voting system was "hacked"? Unless those systems are connected to the Internet (and any state run network does have internet touchpoint these days so that is how they get in or via a stolen login/pwd from a state employee)voting systems go up and then go down after the polls close - so 12 hrs to commit an intrusion that some how alters votes. How is the hacker able to recon the system in advance to know what to look for? There is no opportunity for a test run, 12 hrs is it.

      Delete
  4. Can we please some of your biographical information? Your posts doesn't show anything in that regard except that the blog started a couple of days ago. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't matter about my bio. I dont use anonymous sources, all of evidence is statutes facts media and case law. If the law is printed in code and law reporters then folks can simply read the cases codes. Either the light goes on or it doesnt. Its about words not personalitied.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. How about looking into Michigan's hand recount? Bush V Gore in 2000, SCOTUS clearly ruled 7-2 that Bush's article 9 rights were being violated because the hand recount in Florida did not have a single standard way of recounting. In Michigan, there are about 75k 'blank votes' for President. Without a set standard In Michigan with no true chain of command and the state asking untrained volunteers to come forward, isn't this also an article 9 violation and isn't the 2000 SCOTUS ruling precedence for this?

      Delete
    2. After part 2, i will try to look it up.

      Delete
    3. On what basis is a "blank" vote is suspect? By virtue of a large number of them occurring? Just curious.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lehigh county already completed their (illegal) recount, and found no changes other that a few "found" 3 absentee ballots for Hillary. What kind of incompetents are running the show in Lehigh? Then the Stein/clinton lawyers demanded the actual code of the machines so THEY could see if there was Malware. What a fishing expedition. Also Illegal per all the reasons you listed above. This was denied. I presume their tactic is to request same in every errant, illegal recount that takes place in hopes of finding a county board that knows not what they are doing (or are complicit). How in the world are Trumps lawyers not fighting this at every county??

    http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-lehigh-vote-recanvassingrecovered-wed-nov-30-161059-2016--20161130-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you Ren for the hard efforts. Within recent hours we read(from ‏@DecisionDeskHQ) "Pennsylvania statewide with the Philadelphia tally now complete, and margin shrinks from 70,000 --> 46,435 OR 33% drop in DT margin while we are all thinking things are in limbo till Monday hearing.
    Trump 2,961,875
    Clinton 2,915,440

    Is this mis--info is it legit AND how in effect can such HUGE number be found weeks past certification? Not good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This seems to me to be carefully planned out. Here's why. All counties were supposed to be certified by 11/21. Tells me these heavy Dem counties were in collusion long before any recount request else they would have certified as per state law. Following? They are trying to create confusion and create an appearance of Penn voting as if "there is something wrong" so they can get the state thrown out in a contest. I have no question this is has been carefully thought out and planned. This is a clear subversion attempt of our Republic.

      Delete
  9. Philly moving forward - lots of misapplication of the law here:

    http://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2016/12/philadelphia_recount_jill_stei.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Recount-Presidential-Election-Trump-Clinton-Stein-404060246.html

      Delete
  10. Are you in contact with anybody from the GOP willing to step up and charge Stein for fraud. For fuck's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can you look into the bush v. gore opinion and the safe harbor provision as applied to pennsylvania. In other words,, if these recount shenanigans are still going on when the electors meet, what does the law say should happen?

    ReplyDelete
  12. BillyPenn also has the story that philly has finally completed adding up their votes? - How in the world have they just now completed it? And how did it result in the 70K dropping to 46K? Just like that? Totally seems fishy. http://billypenn.com/2016/12/01/hillary-clinton-lost-pennsylvania-by-just-46000-votes-latest-figures-show/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this possibly the " rogue " element ? Lawyers need to step in and find out what is going on. Strange that 20+ thousand votes just show up right before a judge ruling, and past a hard deadline.

      Delete
    2. Of course, this is why States have laws - which Stalinist leftist constitution subverters never uphold. Certification laws are in place to for this very reason -- Heavily democratic areas can care less about the law, only winning -- which is why they are against voter id laws in truth. Power for them is all that matters - making peoples slaves of their own bidding. Again, this is why The USA has our constitution which is the heart of common law which all other laws derive from. Certain Pennsylvanian counties believe putting their party over law is correct. These people are subverters and support lawlessness.

      Delete
  13. From an article in The Intelligencer:

    A Bucks County judge next week will hear arguments on whether to allow a recount of votes cast in a handful of precincts on Election Day.

    Judge Jeffrey Finley scheduled a hearing for 9 a.m. Tuesday in courtroom 420 of the Bucks County Justice Center in Doylestown Borough.

    More than 20 petitions containing signatures from Bucks County voters were submitted to the county's prothonotary's office on Monday, claiming voting machines in their precincts may have been tampered with.
    Bucks County Board of Elections executive director Deena Dean said the county votes were certified Nov. 23, and state law grants five business days for challenges post-certification.

    ReplyDelete
  14. in Michigan, objection filed by Trump: http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/01/objection-presidential-recount-expected-filed-today/94730850/

    ReplyDelete
  15. I had noticed some reports out of Philly, that Clinton just all of a sudden " gained " 27,000 votes in the last 6 hours alone. Is this part of the " rogue " element you might be speaking of? I am not sure of the source, but it is being floated around. Whereas there was a 60 some thousand difference, now due to Philly, is down to 40k.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From a news story, who actually obtained the "guidance" from the secretary of state:

    "According to the Department of State, they are aware petitions have been filed in Berks, Bucks, Centre, Montogomery and Philadelphia Counties, but did not elaborate on the exact number of petitions filed in each county.

    This the guidance the Department of State is providing to each county in the Commonwealth:

    You may have received petitions for recounts today. We are providing this guidance on what you should do with the petitions.
    As an initial matter, all counties should time stamp each document to indicate the date and time it was received in your office. All counties should do regardless of whether the county is accepting or rejecting the petitions.

    If your county had finished its computation, prepared a certification, waited 5 days from the date of finishing your computation and that five day period has expired, you may reject the petitions and communicate that to the filer. We recommend that you keep a copy of the stamped petition and any written documentation you may provide to the petitioner setting forth the reason(s) for rejection, if applicable.

    If your county has finished its computation, prepared a certification, and the five day period expires today or later, you may inform the filer that during this five-day period, the petition for recount must be filed with the court of common pleas. If a county is directing the filer to the Court of Common Pleas, we recommend that you stamp the petition and keep a copy for your records, as this information may prove helpful later.

    If your county has not completed its initial computation of the returns, under 25 P.S. § 3154, a petition for recount is appropriately directed to the county board of elections and must be accepted.

    In Pennsylvania, a recount can occur if three or more voters per precinct submit affidavits. Pennsylvania has 9,175 voting districts, meaning there needs to be at least 27,525 affidavits submitted.

    "What we would do is wait for word from the state. If they told us they need to do a recount, we'd wait for guidance from them as far as how we would proceed," Michael Anderson with the Lebanon Bureau of Elections and Voter Registration said.
    On Friday, the Department of State said "the Pennsylvania election code includes a provision allowing an election to be contested in the courts. Such action must be taken within 20 days after the election."
    The department would not comment on what the recount process would entail.
    Today, the department says they have learned that many counties have completed their certification thereby closing the 5-day window to petition at the county level for a recount.
    If a person would like to submit a petition for a recount and their county has certified its results, the person can still file with the Court of Common Please."


    Sounds like the State gave out some really crappy advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intentionally crappy advice. No county election board had jurisdiction to allow recount/recanvass after Nov 15th. Hoping Trump team files motions to quash in every county.

      Delete
    2. as mentioned in some of the comments above, seems like the damage has already been done with such a severe movement in votes. Basically all counties should have been certified already. This from the Secretary has given a loophole against the legality of it in the eyes of the precinct canvassers . I am worried that this is all orchestrated, because its so spread out, that right now, everyone is focusing on Michigan, while they are stealing PA out the hat. This is unprecedented politics

      Delete
    3. Certification is a red herring. Dont believe it. Read my post above carefully. The deadline passed on November 21st and certification has nothing to do with it. All of the recount are illegal

      Delete
  17. Apologies for delay on part 2. Its pending

    ReplyDelete
  18. From the City Commissioners of Philly:

    Meeting of the Return Board - Notice of Petition Review for Recanvass

    ADDENDUM:

    The recanvass and recount pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3154 will commence 1 P.M on Friday, December 2, 2016 at the Board of Elections Voting Machine Warehouse, 4700 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144.

    The Board of Elections, sitting as the Return Board, will still convene at 10 A.M. on Thursday, December 1, 2016, 520 N. Columbus Blvd., 6th floor courtroom, Philadelphia, PA 19123, to consider the petitions and determine for which Divisions a recanvass and recount will be conducted.



    The Philadelphia County Board of Elections has received petitions pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3154(e) requesting a recanvass and recount of the vote for the November 8, 2016 General and Special Election in the City and County of Philadelphia in 82 Divisions within Philadelphia County. The Board of Elections, sitting as the Return Board, will convene at 10 A.M. on Thursday, December 1, 2016, at 520 N. Columbus Blvd., 6th floor courtroom, Philadelphia, PA 19123, to consider the petitions and determine for which Divisions a recanvass and recount will be conducted. The recanvass and recount pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3154 will commence immediately upon completion of the examination of petitions with an inspection of the relevant voting machines at the Board of Elections Voting Machine Warehouse, 4700 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144.

    The Return Board meeting at 10 A.M. is open to the public. The recanvass and recount may be attended by the affected candidates (or their attorney) and up to two representatives from each of the affected parties or political bodies. The recanvass and recount will relate to the following electoral contests: President of the United States and United States Senate.

    For any questions or concerns please contact, Deputy Commissioner Frederick L. Voigt, Esq. at 215-686-3939 or Fred.Voigt@phila.gov.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's almost like an episode of Monty Python, but not funny. None of this is legal, it is political and dangerous. This is leading somewhere very unkown uncertain. The election is being taken from voters and its being hacked by judiciary and election boards. The tampering hacking has only just begun. Did you think the concessions were real?

      Delete
  19. The lawyers on all sides are sitting in Michigan, and the rug is being pulled out from under people in Pennsylvania while no one is noticing or able to do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my update above. Things are happening. Need a few hours sleep. Be back soon with part 2.

      Delete
  20. Politico has a link to the 85-page Trump team complaint filing:

    http://static.politico.com/76/c8/23e6f73840859f70e56751173201/161202-pa-recount-application-dismiss.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you now they have to get on the Phylly to stop the counting and add to the count! And other counties too

      Delete
  21. The 12/2/16 update at the top is more assuring. Much of what is cited here, is also cited in the filing of today (12/2). However, I am still seeing disputed dates. The 20 days being used in the filing, rather than your explanation of Nov. 21st ( The filing link Tazio posted above ). Still what I would be concerned the most about, is why they have waited to certify, and still so even after both dates with no contestations, that one knows pertinent.

    ReplyDelete