JILL STEIN'S SECOND POISON PILL MAY BE HIDDEN IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY APPEAL.

Don't blink, the Jill Stein Pennsylvania recount nightmare is about to get even more insidious and weird in Philadelphia County.

Earlier this week, I discussed that federal case as containing a poison dose of subterfuge, but earlier today I mentioned the forthcoming surprise lethal dose. And this one is simply brilliant in its camouflage.

Yesterday, this blog appeared to scoop the main stream media by announcing at 12:19 P.M. ET, that Judge Abbe Fletman had denied the appeal of "petitioners" regarding a Philadelphia Board of Elections decision not to allow petitioners access to the machines for a secondary "forensic examination", after their limited recanvass of 75 precincts failed to reveal any discrepancies.

I discussed in a comment to that post the strange event of my having been on a phone call with Phil. City Commisioner, Fred Voight, asking specifically about the petioners' appeal and asking how I could view the papers - when he suddenly informed me that the decision had just come down as we were talking, appeal denied, opinion to follow.

I asked for the exact caption, "Does it name the voter-petitioners?" He responded that the caption is "In The Matter of The Presidential Election of 2016".

He also confirmed for me that all of the papers were a matter of public record and would be available at http://courts.phila.gov - and he gave me the following "docket number: 16125000".

Fred Voight took my email and said he would send me the original petition submitted to the board of elections by the voters. We never discussed Jill Stein as being part of those petitions, because she was not a voter.

When I tried the docket number, and name of case, neither came up as valid. So I reported:

"I can't seem to find the docket number, so I haven't actually seen papers. Will add more as it comes in."

About an hour later, CBS PHILLY reported this headline:

Judge Denies Appeal By Jill Stein’s Lawyers For Forensic Examinations Of Philly Voting Machines

Their report cloaks the names of the petitioners, only mentioning that Stein's lawyers brought the appeal. And Voight never got back to me, so as of yesterday morning I still havr no names for the petitioners. I wanted to see if Stein's co-plaintiff in her federal Eastern District PA case - the mysterious Randall Reitz - was named in the petition.

Yesterday morning, I was searching for Judge Fletman's Opinion when I came across a report by Dave Davies at Newsworks.org posting Judge Fletman's five page Opinion.

Like Judge Goldsmith's opinion in Michigan's federal District Court that shut down Stein's appeal, Fletman's denial is mostly accurate to the law. But - wait for it - this appeal was not on behalf of the voter-petitioners.

This "partial-appeal" concerns an attempt by Stein to get into the voting machines on her own initiation earlier this week, and it contains a proper Case ID number as well, 161103335.

Here is a pdf of the DOCKET ENTRIES:


https://www.docdroid.net/Wp5NomO/civil-docket-report.pdf.html:

[SOMEBODY PLEASE PURCHASE THE 191 PAGE MEMORANDUM OF LAW + FIVE PAGE APPEAL + BRIEFS OF ELECTION BOARD and REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Upload pdf files and post in comments to this post. I am off the grid.]

Inside the case file at http://courts.phila.gov the number Voight gave me is there, listed  as "Docket Entry 16125000." That eight numeral number Voight gave me is not a case ID number, which is what you really need. Those contain nine numerals. So putting 161203335 in will bring up the case entries.

But Voight and I were discussing an appeal on behalf of the voter-petitioners, not a direct action by Stein. The caption in Case ID 161103555 is "Stein v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections".

What happened to "In the Matter of the Presidential Election of 2016"? I can't find it. The search at courts.phila.gov is not spitting it up, so I do not see an appeal on behalf of voter-petitioners...which does not mean one isn't still pending.

So, earlier this week, Stein instituted her own appeal from the County Board of Elections decision not to allow a forensic examination, and she lost...but not by much if you ask me.

Because if you look closer at the devious details, a few sinister blips have hit the radar screen:

Blip 1: Didn't the media tell everyone that Jill gave up on her Pennsylvania state activity? Didn't she hold a big press conference on Monday Dec. 5th announcing that she was filing a temper tantrum in Federal Court over the antiquated Pennsylvania Election Code? I don't recall any hullabaloo about her pending Philly appeal hearing the next day.

This quiet appeal shows cunning. Why? Because - unlike the big blustering Federal Court hype - this little appeal provides shade and distraction in a tighter space related to...

Blip 2: This was only a "partial appeal", so what else is going on then if this is just partial? What is the whole? Is there another part of this case still surviving? Judge Fletman's opinion seems to indicate that there is...

Blip 3: Check this bizarre intrigue from page five of Fletman's opinion:

"Similarly, in this case, appellants have raised no specter of fraud, bad faith, abuse of discretion, or arbitrariness. Accordingly, this court will not disturb the board's opinion... For all the foregoing reasons, the court affirms the decision of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections and dismisses the appeal of appellant Jill Stein."

The caption only mentions Jill Stein. So where are the other "appellants" ? Appellants who apparently failed to allege fraud and bad faith, that is.

You see, Stein latched on to voter-petitioners here - according to Fletman's opinion - as a candidate who was allowed to examine voting machines during a recount under P.S. 2650(c) of the Election Code.

However, Fletman held that "examination" of the machines does not equal surgical forensic analysis of the inner electronic voting system contained therein.

Hmm. I don't like it. This is sneaky as... Me no likey. Nope. Judge Fletman's argument against Stein on this point is murky, and I think - if going with my gut - intentionally so. In fact, I would expect an appeal to the Commonwealth Court is pending as we speak. I am just waking up to this, because I was clearly hoodwinked here. My bad.

This drop of poison is potentially lethal.

To me, it seems possible Stein could appeal this decision right up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court...if her petitioners were before the Philadelphia County Election Board properly under 1404(e) of the Election Code.

But what about the other appellants? Was that just a typo? I seriously do not believe that. This looks insidious.

These guys/gals are good. Evil. Cunning. Deceptive. They own the media. I mean, c'mon, how is it even possible Lawrence Tabas is both, still a candidate-elector for Trump and not pending disciplinary action in front of the Pennsylvania bar.

And why did he not let the Commonwealth Court know he was an interested party, a candidate for the Office of Candidate Elector?

And why did Ron Hicks perform like a spastic buffoon before the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, butchering the statute and especially the deadline? He is not a buffoon. And his deception was clever.

I am always reminded of Kashmir by Led Zeppelin in moments like this, "We are your overlords." They see us as  muggles.

To me, it seems possible Stein could appeal this decision right up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court...if her petitioners were before the Philadelphia County Election Board properly under 1404(e) of the Election Code. My report earlier today proves they were not.

Stay vigilant, deplorables.

Stay classy, Philadelphia.


Ren Jander, J.D.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE RECOUNT LAWS ARE SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND OBEY.

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.

BACKGROUND:

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.

DIGITAL WATERGATE: STATE OF GEORGIA HAS EVIDENCE DHS TRIED TO HACK THEIR SOS OFFICE DURING ELECTION 2016.

Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, with blockbuster allegation - supported by solid evidence - that the Department of Homeland Security hacked into their firewall during the election of 2016:

“At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network."

"Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network. This is especially odd and concerning since I serve on the Election Cyber Security Working Group that your office created.”

The report at CyberScoop also highlighted the following observation by Kemp about the bogus Russian scare:

In an interview with Politico, Kemp intimated that the federal government’s hacking fears were overblown, saying “they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system.”

Understand this USA, the bastards know where they planted evidence of hacking in Pennsylvania. Everything else is smoke. They must get into certain precincts in Pennsylvania where they know the bodies are buried.

That's what Jill Stein has been up to. They already know where the evidence is, because they put it there. And the only thing standing in their way is the Pennsylvania Election Code.

That's why brilliant and celebrated attorneys discussed in my previous reports - Ron Hicks and Lawrence Tabas - have fallen on their swords, to make it seem as if the Election Code is too difficult for even such legal luminaries as them to comprehend.

And that is why Jill Stein has placed the Code itself under defamatory attack. This will be a potent topic in the hearing she gets today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Trump has lawyers intervening today. And he better have eyes on this blog, or his attorneys will end up swallowing one of Jill Stein's potions of hemlock - perhaps by design - and then Trump will never be President and America as we knew her, will be dead.

This will be a busy day.

Ren Jander, J.D.

BREAKING: PHILADELPHIA COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FLETMAN DENIES APPEAL IN RECOUNT PETITION.

[UPDATED: CBS just confirmed at 1:28 PM, see update below for quote.]

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Abbe Fletman has denied Petitioners' appeal "In The Matter of Presidential Election of 2016", "opinion of court to follow", according to Philadelphia Deputy City Commisioner, Fred Voight.

I can't seem to find the docket number, so I haven't actually seen papers. Will add more as it comes in.

[UPDATE: Via CBS PHILLY - "After hearing oral arguments, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Abbe Fletman denied the appeal. She affirmed the city commissioner’s decision to reject the request by Jill Stein’s lawyers for a forensic audit, to look into the software of voting machines.

After Stein’s supporters filed affadavits for the recount, elections officials checked out 75 of 1,686 city voting divisions. While a deputy city solicitor told the judge 'there was no evidence of any discrepancies...' "

WARNING USA: JILL STEIN HAS A DEVIOUS DECEMBER SURPRISE TO OVERTHROW THE ELECTION.

• [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 
district.

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.

ALLEGHENY RECANVASS YEILDS NOTHING - NOW THEY WANT "FORENSIC EXAMINATION" OF MACHINES.

The illegally sanctioned recanvass in 52 precincts in Allegheny County today corroborated the election night vote count. No errors in the returns were found. By law, the election night result is now untouchable... if the law is to finally be respected in Pennsylvania.

But now the Stein zombies want the county boards to grant access to a team of  digital surgeon assets for a "forensic examination" inside the guts of the machines:

"Yesterday, Douglas Lieb, an attorney for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, sent to Allegheny County Elections Division Manager Mark Wolosik a 'formal request ... to allow such a forensic examination at the campaign's expense and under the supervision of the elections division.'

'In this election, and with these machines, the only way to ensure the integrity of the vote in this county is a comprehensive forensic exam,' the three-page letter asserts."

Lieb is the attorney for whom arch-villain Ron Hicks sabotaged Friday's hearing. Hicks failed to make the proper arguments and lost in court, therefore the illegal recanvass today took place.

As I pointed out in a comprehensive legal briefing last night, a recanvass petition before the county board can only be granted to consider an unintentional error recorded by district election officials on the return sheets. The county board has no jurisdiction whatsoever to allow a "forensic" examination at all as to allegations of fraud, intrusion, or any other illegal behavior.

My briefing also points out that the Election Code requires that a recanvas for intentional fraud be timely initiated in the court of common pleas. County boards have no jurisdiction to investigate illegality, courts do. 

Since the deadline has passed, a new petition to recanvass in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas must be denied as the deadline of November 21 has passed and no extension is possible according to law.

The Poste-Gazette newspaper reports the official response of Allegheny County Elections Division Manager Mark Wolosik  as follows:

"Mr. Wolosik noted that the county elections board, a three-person panel which presides over vote-counting, had not agreed to such a forensic examination. As a matter of policy, the county examines the programming of 20 machines, randomly selected out of more than 4,000, prior to each election."

Wolosik's statement should also have stated that the county board has no legal authority or jurisdiction to grant a "forensic examination" of the machines at all. 

A recanvass is defined by law as a simple re-examination of the returns, which is exactly what Lieb achieved. Now that the recanvass has confirmed the election night results, the losers - who failed to graciously accept defeat in the actual election - now cannot seem to accept reality with regard to the recanvass either , which they did not deserve and weren't legally entitled to anyway.

My legal briefing yesterday is now required reading for those interested in a truthful explanation of the law. It will be followed up soon with a comprehensive briefing as to why both attorneys, Lieb and Hicks, and the court of common pleas, got the deadlines wrong.

Here is a case I previously reported on that proves the deadline for any recanvass in Pennsylvania is time-barred as of November 21:

"Section 1703 of the Code, 25 P.S. § 3263, permits such a petition to be filed before the certification of the returns and 'no later than five (5) days after the completion of the computational canvassing of all the returns of the county by the county board....' " 

APPEAL OF ORSATTI, 143 Pa.Commw. 12, 598 A.2d 1341 (1991).

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