- [UPDATED with "silver bullets" at 11:04 A.M. 12.6.16]
A careful pondering upon Jill Stein's Federal Court law suit filing last night revealed the truly devious hand of the brilliant legal scheming puppet master pulling her strings from behind the scenes in Pennsylvania.
Look at page 7, paragraphs 37-39, wherein the devious plot is revealed:
37. That petition by three voters in a district can only activate a recount in that
38. Pennsylvania has 9,158 election districts in 67 counties.
39. In order for voters to request a statewide recount in Pennsylvania, 27,474 voters evenly spread throughout 9,158 districts must sign petitions, get them notarized, and bring them to their local county board of elections.
Briefly now - extensively later - I will explain the mega devious December Surprise awaiting the USA any minute now:
The 9158 "voting districts" are referred to in the Election Code as "election districts", but there are also 18 "Congressional Districts" specifically mentioned in the Code, the votes from which must be certified separately by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Either Stein's attorneys, or the federal court on its own observance will point out that 1404(e) states:
(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 - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3154.html#sthash.OSUIvaRB.dpuf
Then the argument will be made that the Pennsylvania Election Code specfically states that the term "election district" refers to precinct level voting districts, and that recounts due to discrepancies noticed by election officials mentioned in 1404(e) take place in the precinct level "voting districts", as Stein's federal filing refers to them, but that the voter-initiated recount/recanvass petitions are submitted from "any district".
Then it will be held that "any district" is a different term than "electoral district", and that the Pennsylvania General Assembly refers to "Congressional Districts" in using "any district".
The court will observe that voter-initiated recounts were never supposed to be so cumbersome as plead by Stein, and that the Electoral Code grants a full Congressional District wide recount/recanvass to successful voter-petitioners pleading under 1404(e).
And the point is that Jill Stein's petitioners probably did file in every Congressional District but not every precinct.
Why is this important? Because the Pennsylvania Election Code at 1404(e) states that if a single recount petition by three voters is granted, the recount "shall" take place throughout the entire district. It does not use the term "election district".
Some of Jill Stein's petitioners were granted a recount or recanvass, but only in their little precinct, when - it will be argued and held - that the whole Congressional District should have been included in the recount/recanvass.
Jill Stein's attorneys and/or the court will argue that the recount/recanvass was done wrong, and they will make an Equal Protection issue out of it giving the Federal Court jurisdiction to remand the matter to Pennsylvania ordering recount/recanvass statewide in every Congressional District where a petition was granted.
This is your December surprise, America.
They got the Congressional District vs Election District filing issue wrong, the court will hold, and the poor voter-petitioners will get a full Congressional District wide recount/recanvass in all Congressional Districts where successful petitions were brought.
This sneak attack was planned well in advance to creat havoc and steal this election. Every stage of the plan is ends exactly as stated herein.
You won't find mention of it in Jill Stein's filing. I just read them well. I speak their language fluently. You must assume the federal judiciary will rule exactly as I have predicted. You read it here first.
And your loyal servant here at Jander Research has already got the antidotes. There are three silver bullets, but we only need prove one. Two silver bullets are discussed in one of my legal briefings here; false affidavits and failure to allege "an error".
The third silver bullet pertains to the deadline to file an initial recount/recanvass petition - which Stein's federal complaint alleges is too difficult to decypher.
No, it's not difficult at all. The key to decyphering it is in 1404(f):
(1) Except as set forth in subsection (h), the secretary shall order a recount and recanvass to all county boards if the unofficial returns prepared in accordance with subsection (f) reflect any of the following:
I will update this report with a more comprehensive follow up soon. But their entire plan must fail because none of the above applies if they missed the deadline. And they missed it by a mile. Same analysis works for the other two silver bullets.
But we only need one to win...assuming a fair court is trying to decide honestly. There is no possible legal argument that will withstand the silver bullets. The problem is that we are currently under attack by a judicial coup d'etat. All I can do is show you the truth of the law. If people are willing to be ruled by judicial anarchy and the tyranny of a cabal of soulless lawyers, do nothing to spread what you read here.
Their other contingency endgame is a sneak attack at the electoral college. This blog has already exposed one saboteur elector. More to follow. I hope folks will start taking me seriously now. I'm here to help.
Welcome to the judicial coup d'etat attempt to steal America. Time for intellectual ninjas to step up.
Ren Jander, J.D.