Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:02 pm
Sadly, I made the mistake of clicking your links...
Now, the first two are basically the same, just saying that this court case with the ex intelligence people etc now has reached the SCOTUS.
But the second one actually has a link to the documents...
Now, I'm not a legal scholar, but goddamnit, is it normal to hand in legal documents in ALL CAPS? It f*****g hurts the eyes. If I were a judge I would definitely consider this contempt of court. Sheesh.
I also noticed the document contains a lot of legalize that I'm not familiar with, such as IGNORGED, THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT, ESTALBLISHED, LIKEHOOD, THIE, ELEMENTH AMENDMENT, ERREONEOUSLY, PREJUDICIED. Either these are specific legal terms that I'm unaware of, or it could also be that this law firm uses preschoolers to type their legal documents.
Once we get past the all caps part, things get easier to read, but there are still some gross violations of basic grammar and mathematical logic.
No. Each ... is ...!Each of the following Plaintiffs/Petitioners are ...
Which is confirmed by the next paragraph beginning "Each of these Plaintiffs/Petitioners has ..."
Just thinking out loud here, 2:0... isn't that, like, infinity?As a result, Democratic election challengers outnumbered Republicans by 2:1 or 3:1 (or sometimes 2:0 at voting machines)
So... if I understand this correctly... he implies that it is physically impossible for a voter that in 2016 voted for Trump to in 2020 vote for Biden?A report from Dr. Eric Quinell analyzing the anomalous turnout figures in Wayne and Oakland Counties showing that Biden gained nearly 100%, and frequently more than 100%, of all “new” voters in certain townships/precincts over 2016, and thus indicated that nearly 87,000 anomalous and likely fraudulent votes were accepted and tabulated from these precincts.
Why do they even make these mathematical probability challenges? It's not about maths. It is about people voting. And yeah, we know there were a lot of blue collar people voting for Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016, so quite obviously people can change their opinion. If someone can switch from Obama to Trump, they can obviously also change from Trump to Biden, so the idea that only "new voters" could add to Biden's total compared to Hillary Clinton's is ludicrous. And to try to argue that is an insult to those who have to waste their precious time listening or reading the argument.
Yeah, I won't bother going through all of it in detail, but when you read the part of the reasons the previous judge gave to dismissing the case it is hard to keep from nodding vehemently. If you think Loui is an air thief, he is nothing compared to the lawyers who came up with this shitty brief....
The bar for passing the bar must be very low.
Also, they are asking that the electors must not be allowed to vote prior to this case being heard ... I dunno ... seems to me the train has already left the station.
OK, so the third link...
someone heard someone say that someone working in the office next to the SCOTUS meeting heard them screaming, etc, short summary of what was supposedly said, and description of facial expressions of the various judges as they left the room.
Conveniently omitting to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has not met in person for nine months, and that all their meetings are by teleconference. ... which is pointed out by multiple people in the comments section. https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo ... a_10-22-20
... or, I mean, it would be funny, if it were not a brazen attempt to undermine democracy and the rule of law in the USA...
).
