Posted on 12/09/2016 2:21:39 PM PST by dirtboy
great! thanks
Bush probably put out a call to this judge...DELAY DELAY DELAY!!! Payback for his little bro jebby!!
For many, this election means either continued wealth and power or prison and loss of everything... so desperate measures are being taken by many behind the scenes. Jill is just the useful idiot acting as the front person.
She withdrew her request to contest the election before Commonwealth Court. She cannot obtain relief there without refiling, which the Federal Court cannot order the Commonwealth Court to grant.
In her pleading to the Federal District Court, she is attempting to claim, inter alia that the $1 million bond is part of a broad pattern of Unconstitutional provisions in PA election law.
Guess what?
This Federal District has already cited the 79 year standing of PA election law without a successful challenge as “good reason” to avoid last-minute intervention in the state’s electoral process back on November 3rd.
“Maybe that was fake news tho.”
kinda hard to tell these days ...
Are you a Concern Troll?
You two need to knock it off with the drama. Every freaking post that you two make is about how they are going to steal the election which thus far has not happened. Michigan is over, FL was shut down, there has been no change in WI and Penney will be shut down on Monday. Take your drama elsewhere but it’s getting old.
It doesn't matter. Michigan's Supreme Court hammered in the final nail to Stein's recount effort there about an hour ago. Trump has 270+ no matter what happens in WI and PA (and Wisconsin is 80% counted, with Hillary picking up about 50 votes).
MI high Court did decline the recount appeal:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3503250/posts?page=1#1
I think he delayed his decision so that there is no time for apeals and other horse hockey so that MI can get its Electors lined up and participate in the process as they need to do.
Seriously, please knock off the drama. I’ve been following this recount gambit very closely, and there is no chance of it coming even close to succeeding - and that is not just my opinion, but of a liberal lawyer friend versed in election law who thinks Stein’s laywers should have been tossed out the front door today during that hearing, for wasting the court’s time.
Thank you for the correction!!
LIBs are insufferable menaces to any and every society. Losers...Lunatics.
* * *
Is there any way someone or some group who can sue Jill Stein into total bankruptcy, make an example out of her? She has abused our court system with her frivolous BS, I would love to see her legally stomped into a four foot diameter throw rug.
A little late in my estimation.
sorry the plaintiffs gave this to rule on. she is suing the democrat SOS for:
1. “Voting machines are electoral black sites: no one permits voters or candidates to examine them.”
i agree and i bet i could organize an audit. these voting machines need an audit trail. but that is an audit trail. not cause to invalidate the votes. Jim De Felice might want to make this an issue in Philly.
2 “exorbitant fees” 100 bucks to show that an election needs to be overturned. dismissed it’s not that much money honey.
3. “This labyrinthine, incomprehensible, and impossibly burdensome election regime might make Kafka proud. But for ordinary voters, it is a disaster.”
appeal to literature ... dismissed
4. “Were Pennsylvania votes counted accurately?” Russians caused the machines to miscount our votes in PA appeal to racism. anyone of Russian origin cannot accurately record votes from an electronic voting machine.(philly only i haven’t voted any where else in a long while) appeal to literate again a book on russian spies somewhere.
5 “A majority of machines voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.” appeal to movies. since the terminator lost the machines are not voting”
just my humble opinion.
here is the suit
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JILL STEIN and RANDALL REITZ, Plaintiffs, v. PEDRO A. CORTÉS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth; and JONATHAN MARKS, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, Defendants. No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOW COME Plaintiffs Jill Stein and Randall Reitz (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, and Lawrence Otter, Esq., and for their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Pedro A. Cortés, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth; and Jonathan M. Marks, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, hereby allege as follows.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Pennsylvania election system is a national disgrace. Voters are forced to use vulnerable, hackable, antiquated technology banned in other states, then rely on the kindness of machines. There is no paper trail. Voting machines are electoral black sites: no one permits voters or candidates to examine them.
2
2.
After election day, voters are equally helpless to make sure their votes are counted. The Election Code requires 27,474 voters in 9,158 districts to bring notarized petitions to county boards, in time for shifting, divergent, and secret deadlines known to no one except, perhaps, 67 separate county election boards. In court recounts, voters must pay exorbitant fees, and (according to boards of elections) should only one voter fail to sign a single petition in a single district anywhere in the State, no one can seek a recount anywhere. 3.
This labyrinthine, incomprehensible, and impossibly burdensome election regime might make Kafka proud. But for ordinary voters, it is a disaster. 4.
In the 2016 presidential election, rife with foreign interference documented by American intelligence agencies and hacks of voter rolls in multiple states, voters deserve the truth. Were Pennsylvania votes counted accurately? That truth is not difficult to learn: simply count the paper ballots in optical scan districts, and permit forensic examination of the electronic voting systems in DRE districts. This can be done in days, by top experts, if necessary at the Stein campaign’s expense, under the supervision of election officials, and without endangering a single vote. 5.
A majority of machines voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. But who did the people vote for? Absent this Court’s intervention, Pennsylvanians will never know that truth.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1357; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7.
This Court has authority to issue declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 8.
Venue is in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
3
PARTIES
9.
Plaintiff Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate for the November 2016 election, and her name appeared on the ballot in Pennsylvania. 10.
Plaintiff Randall Reitz is a voter in the State of Pennsylvania, and voted in the 2016 presidential election. 11.
Defendant Pedro Cortés is the Secretary of the Commonwealth and is being sued in his official capacity. In his capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Mr. Cortés heads the Pennsylvania Department of State (“DoS”) and is the chief election official in Pennsylvania. 12.
Defendant Jonathan Marks is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation in the DoS, and is being sued in his official capacity. In his capacity as Commissioner, Mr. Marks oversees the administration of elections in Pennsylvania and is responsible for planning, developing, and coordinating statewide implementation of the Pennsylvania Election Code. 13.
Both defendants enforce and implement the Pennsylvania Election Code.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Voting Machines in Pennsylvania: Vulnerable, Hackable, Dangerous
14.
The State of Pennsylvania relies primarily on direct electronic recording (“DRE”) machines to record the vote. A majority of counties representing approximately 72% of registered voters in Pennsylvania use DRE machines. 15.
Thirty-five other states require that DRE machines leave a paper trail that voters can check and verify before their votes are recorded. Yet DRE machines in Pennsylvania do not leave a paper trail accessible to voters or to anyone else. Voters touch boxes on a screen, get no paper confirmation of their vote, and hope their votes were counted accurately.
It would seem that is his plan. Cowardly way to do it but good all the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.