This is going to be a very simple report - wherein I will explain clearly - key provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code as they pertain to the recount issues raised by Jill Stein in her ever growing menagerie of attempts to break into Pennsylvania voting machines and software.
At a later date, I will follow up this abridged remedial version, with a detailed legal brief supported by case law analysis. For now, this will suffice in guiding the layperson to clarity.
For evidence and analysis pertaining to my ongoing exposure of the collusive corruption flowing between Stein's attorneys, judiciary assets, and the legal team who were supposed to be protecting Trump's election - see my report earlier today.
THE FORTHCOMING STORM:
Today at 1:30 P.M., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - a federal court - will conduct a hearing on all of the above.
The core analysis below is new to this blog and certainly to the national argument. Those following me closely will not be familiar with the following statutory analysis, because I have been waiting for the enemy to reveal their hand. Soon, I will expose the real poison pill held by Jill Stein and her evil cohorts. Previous discussions about her preference for hemlock did not contain the full lethal dose. Below is the true antidote I have previously alluded to.
I give you now the simple legal truth contained in the Pennsylvania Election Code, one of the most intelligent, practical, and thoroughly perfect pieces of legislation I have ever read.
The General Assembly knocked it out of the park on this law, which is designed to take all doubt out of the administration of the precious franchise of voting.
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE UNDER ATTACK:
Jill Stein has argued that no citizen could ever understand the full Election Code well enough in order to bring a properly executed recount petition into play. But statutes are not written for lay people. They are written for lawyers.
While the full Code may appear burdensome to lay persons, professional attorneys can easily find every step of the voting process laid out in a glorious dance of controlled movement that mandates every step in the election process with clarity to the trained eye.
Just as a patient is not allowed to write their own prescriptions, lay people should not be framing their own legal documents. There is a reason law school is hard and the Bar Examinations are terrifying. This is to make sure that those who obtain a law license actually know what they are doing, so that you may receive the best possible advice when you need it.
Stein's tantrums on this issue are ridiculous. Of course voters have trouble using the Election Code, but it's truly malpractice for trained attorneys and members of the judiciary to have butchered it in Pennsylvania.
And that they have so butchered it, is not evidence that the code is too antiquated, burdensome or inexact, but rather their feigned confusion indicates sabotage.
The only way I can prove that is by making the relevant parts of the Code appear simple to you, the lay people reading this briefing. And this I must do, because any minute now, a representative of the judicial coup d'etat is about to tell you otherwise.
It will soon be established by a court, that even if only one of Jill Stein's voter-initiated petitions for recanvass of voting machines was properly executed, verified and submitted according to the relevant Election Code, then - wait for it - a full statewide recanvass was required by the Election Code.
Yes, you read that correctly. And the judiciary member making that statement will be correct. I will discuss this further in a separate report.
Then, the court will hold that, since the voter-petitioners were entitled to a statewide recanvass (of machines), or recount (of ballots), when they only received a recount/recanvass in very limited precincts, an equal protection issue comes in play under the Constitution, and
they will order a statewide recount or recanvass.
Then the bastards will find the evidence of hacking/fraud/tampering that they themselves planted, and Donald Trump can kiss being President goodbye and America can do the same for the rule of law.
THE ONLY DEFENSE IS BELOW:
For the rest of this briefing we will assume that some of Jill Stein's voter-initiated petitions were executed properly in all other aspects other than meeting the statutory deadline. We will not discuss affidavits, or evidence of fraud or error. We will assume perfectly executed documents were filed, and we will assume that whether Donald Trump becomes President depends upon only one thing:
POINT ONE: Were the voter-initiated petitions for recount/recanvass in Pennsylvania filed before the controlling deadline?
No. They were not.
The absolute deadline for a voter to file a petition to initiate a recount or recanvass was November 15, 2016. If no such petitions were filed on, or before that date, then there will be no further recount or recanvass in Pennsylvania.
And the results of those that have already taken place must be canceled.
A SIMPLE ANALYSIS:
Recounts in Pennsylvania revolve around section 1404(g), the provision of Code that provides for a statewide recount/recanvass if a candidate "is defeated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for an office." Donald Trump won by a greater margin, so no such recount was ordered.
The Code at 1404(g)(2) mandates a deadline for such recount to be "ordered" by the Secretary of the Commonwealth by 5 P.M. on the second Thursday after the election. This year, that deadline fell on November 17, 2016 at 5 P.M.
Since no such order was given, there can be no recount or recanvass whatsoever in Pennsylvania. Any that have taken place were done illegally and should not count.
This is because, in order for the Secretary of the Commonwealth to determine whether a candidate lost by one-half of a percent or less, he must consult the unofficial returns.
According to 1404(g)(1), the Secretary shall make his determination to order the recount if the "unofficial returns prepared in accordance with subsection (f)" show a defeat by one-half of a percent or less.
This is the section concerning computation of the returns.
The preparations are listed clearly and concisely in 1404(f), which requires that the returns be added together, attested, computed and signed. These are the preparations discussed in 1404(g).
The Secretary cannot make a proper decision to order a statewide recount without having the "unofficial returns" that must be "prepared in accordance with subsection(f)". Subsection (f) contains all the steps necessary for the preparation alluded to in 1404(g).
The Code requires under 1404(f) that the unofficial returns be presented to the Secretary no later than seven days after the election. This year that day fell upon November 15, 2016. That was the final day for voters to initiate a petition for a recount.
There are other Code sections that allow for a secondary recount petition - flowing directly from the initial one - to be brought at a later date, but only upon timely submission of an initial petition, which did not happen this election.
The initial petition recount condition is also satisfied if the secondary recount petition flows from an order by the Secretary under 1404(g).
November 17th was the final day for the Secretary to order a recount this year.
All voter-petitioner recounts initiated after November 15th are strictly barred by law.
If the Election Code anticipated an initial recount petition being allowed after the 1404(g) deadline, then it would not have tied the hands of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to an earlier date.
Ren Jander, J.D.