What do we do when traitor judges dismiss Trump's election fraud cases AGAIN without HEARING the evidence?

munkle

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2012
5,141
8,788
2,130
Only 8 out of 6 Trump election fraud lawsuits decided on the merits. Most of the rest turned down down on procedure grounds like "no standing." If Trump doesn't have the standing to challenge an election he was in, who does?

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm


Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit wrote "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

But the judge does not determine fact. That is the jury's role. How is legislating from the bench not a "specific allegation?" Bibas tap danced and shirked his duty to hear the grievance, which is what the courts are for.

RINO Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (Pennsylvania), dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (3rd Cir Appeals)


Trump Campaign Files Supreme Court Challenge to Pennsylvania Election Results

VH8lQnL.png


"The lawsuit is seeking “all appropriate remedies,” which includes the vacating of electors that were committed to Joe Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania Legislature to call up their own electors. When the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, the Republican Party in Pennsylvania had its own electors cast votes for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, in a bid to preserve legal challenges in the state.


“The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college,” according to the Trump statement, authored by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit will attempt to reverse several decisions that “eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud.”

The lawsuit says that these laws prohibited election officials from checking whether mail-in ballot signatures were genuine during Election Day canvassing, removed the right of certain campaigns to challenge the ballots when they were canvassed for forged signatures or other issues, prohibited campaign poll observers from getting close enough to the ballot-tabulation efforts in some areas like Philadelphia, and removing the statutory requirement stipulating that voters properly sign, address, and date mail ballots.

“Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” Trump’s lawyer John Eastman wrote (pdf), adding that “more than enough” ballots are involved to affect the election outcome.

Eastman asked that the Supreme Court require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to respond to the campaign’s filing by noon on Dec. 23. Boockvar’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin asserting that those states made unconstitutional changes to their election laws. In a 7–2 ruling not to hear the case, the court said that Texas lacked standing, a move that drew condemnation from Trump and other conservatives.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s top executives alleging that the state changed its mail-in ballot laws in an unconstitutional manner. The Supreme Court previously rejected the group’s request for immediate injunctive relief to block Pennsylvania from taking further steps to certify the 2020 election results.

Kelly’s lawyers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Dec. 11, docketed by the court on Dec. 15, which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong when it dismissed their case because the justices thought the plaintiffs filed their case with unreasonable delay. "

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits

https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
 
I think the SCOTUS will hear the case if it happens again.

What seven of the justices did was make a calculation that it would be better for the country to let the steal go forward, rather than reveal how corrupt the Dems have made our “elections”.

But this time, they know they are dealing with a Marxist who is totally ignorant, and will destroy the country. Thus, they will decide that it is better to reveal the steal than let the Obama Puppet be installed.

And all it takes is three more of the justices to decide that way. Two already wanted to hear the 2020 case.
 
I think the SCOTUS will hear the case if it happens again.

What seven of the justices did was make a calculation that it would be better for the country to let the steal go forward, rather than reveal how corrupt the Dems have made our “elections”.

But this time, they know they are dealing with a Marxist who is totally ignorant, and will destroy the country. Thus, they will decide that it is better to reveal the steal than let the Obama Puppet be installed.

And all it takes is three more of the justices to decide that way. Two already wanted to hear the 2020 case.
With you fuckups our country has a better chance of being taken over by fascism.
 
Only 8 out of 6 Trump election fraud lawsuits decided on the merits. Most of the rest turned down down on procedure grounds like "no standing." If Trump doesn't have the standing to challenge an election he was in, who does?

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm


Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit wrote "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

But the judge does not determine fact. That is the jury's role. How is legislating from the bench not a "specific allegation?" Bibas tap danced and shirked his duty to hear the grievance, which is what the courts are for.

RINO Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (Pennsylvania), dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (3rd Cir Appeals)


Trump Campaign Files Supreme Court Challenge to Pennsylvania Election Results

VH8lQnL.png


"The lawsuit is seeking “all appropriate remedies,” which includes the vacating of electors that were committed to Joe Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania Legislature to call up their own electors. When the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, the Republican Party in Pennsylvania had its own electors cast votes for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, in a bid to preserve legal challenges in the state.


“The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college,” according to the Trump statement, authored by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit will attempt to reverse several decisions that “eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud.”

The lawsuit says that these laws prohibited election officials from checking whether mail-in ballot signatures were genuine during Election Day canvassing, removed the right of certain campaigns to challenge the ballots when they were canvassed for forged signatures or other issues, prohibited campaign poll observers from getting close enough to the ballot-tabulation efforts in some areas like Philadelphia, and removing the statutory requirement stipulating that voters properly sign, address, and date mail ballots.

“Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” Trump’s lawyer John Eastman wrote (pdf), adding that “more than enough” ballots are involved to affect the election outcome.

Eastman asked that the Supreme Court require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to respond to the campaign’s filing by noon on Dec. 23. Boockvar’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin asserting that those states made unconstitutional changes to their election laws. In a 7–2 ruling not to hear the case, the court said that Texas lacked standing, a move that drew condemnation from Trump and other conservatives.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s top executives alleging that the state changed its mail-in ballot laws in an unconstitutional manner. The Supreme Court previously rejected the group’s request for immediate injunctive relief to block Pennsylvania from taking further steps to certify the 2020 election results.

Kelly’s lawyers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Dec. 11, docketed by the court on Dec. 15, which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong when it dismissed their case because the justices thought the plaintiffs filed their case with unreasonable delay. "

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits

https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Trump has had over 60 chances in court and still has no evidence.

He'll claim the upcoming election was stolen and blame Vance.
 
Trump has had over 60 chances in court and still has no evidence.

He'll claim the upcoming election was stolen and blame Vance.

This only says either you have poor reading comprehension or you didn't read the post. You don't have evidence if you don't hear the evidence. Look up "discovery" (legal term).
 
If the judges do not have a lifetime appointment then they need to be unbenched for political bias.
"No standing" ruling is ridiculous.

If they are lifetime appointments then the only way to remove them is by impeachment....
And it is necessary to impeachment a few highly political judges to get the rest to tote the line for having prejudice.
 
This only says either you have poor reading comprehension or you didn't read the post. You don't have evidence if you don't hear the evidence. Look up "discovery" (legal term).
In a court of law you present evidence after an investigation.

Wanker
 
Only 8 out of 6 Trump election fraud lawsuits decided on the merits. Most of the rest turned down down on procedure grounds like "no standing." If Trump doesn't have the standing to challenge an election he was in, who does?

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm


Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit wrote "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

But the judge does not determine fact. That is the jury's role. How is legislating from the bench not a "specific allegation?" Bibas tap danced and shirked his duty to hear the grievance, which is what the courts are for.

RINO Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (Pennsylvania), dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (3rd Cir Appeals)


Trump Campaign Files Supreme Court Challenge to Pennsylvania Election Results

VH8lQnL.png


"The lawsuit is seeking “all appropriate remedies,” which includes the vacating of electors that were committed to Joe Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania Legislature to call up their own electors. When the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, the Republican Party in Pennsylvania had its own electors cast votes for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, in a bid to preserve legal challenges in the state.


“The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college,” according to the Trump statement, authored by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit will attempt to reverse several decisions that “eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud.”

The lawsuit says that these laws prohibited election officials from checking whether mail-in ballot signatures were genuine during Election Day canvassing, removed the right of certain campaigns to challenge the ballots when they were canvassed for forged signatures or other issues, prohibited campaign poll observers from getting close enough to the ballot-tabulation efforts in some areas like Philadelphia, and removing the statutory requirement stipulating that voters properly sign, address, and date mail ballots.

“Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” Trump’s lawyer John Eastman wrote (pdf), adding that “more than enough” ballots are involved to affect the election outcome.

Eastman asked that the Supreme Court require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to respond to the campaign’s filing by noon on Dec. 23. Boockvar’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin asserting that those states made unconstitutional changes to their election laws. In a 7–2 ruling not to hear the case, the court said that Texas lacked standing, a move that drew condemnation from Trump and other conservatives.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s top executives alleging that the state changed its mail-in ballot laws in an unconstitutional manner. The Supreme Court previously rejected the group’s request for immediate injunctive relief to block Pennsylvania from taking further steps to certify the 2020 election results.

Kelly’s lawyers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Dec. 11, docketed by the court on Dec. 15, which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong when it dismissed their case because the justices thought the plaintiffs filed their case with unreasonable delay. "

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits

https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Depends on who you are.

Some get their law licenses revoked.

Some admit they lied about poll workers.

Some say the lies were ok because any reasonable person would know better.

Some tell their DOJ to just the election is rigged and leave the rest to me and friends in Congress.

Some sign false documents pretending to be electors.

Some try to hang Mike pence.

Some commit seditious conspiracy.

Some neat up capital police.

Some try to convince their VP to not certify the election.

Some cry and whine about the election they lost like sniveling anti America bitches.
 
According to the OP link provided,

11/27/2020: Order/Ruling, The Third Circuit denied the requested injunction and affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend. Judge Bibas, writing for the panel, held that appellants, the Trump Campaign, tried to "repackage" state-law claims about ballot corrections and poll observer access as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet the Campaign never alleged that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. An injunction to undo Pennsylvania's certification was not warranted, since "the number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory" and "it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters." The circuit held that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint a second time, since the Campaign's delay was undue and an amendment would have been futile.
 
Only 8 out of 6 Trump election fraud lawsuits decided on the merits. Most of the rest turned down down on procedure grounds like "no standing." If Trump doesn't have the standing to challenge an election he was in, who does?

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm


Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit wrote "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

But the judge does not determine fact. That is the jury's role. How is legislating from the bench not a "specific allegation?" Bibas tap danced and shirked his duty to hear the grievance, which is what the courts are for.

RINO Judge Stephano Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (Pennsylvania), dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (3rd Cir Appeals)


Trump Campaign Files Supreme Court Challenge to Pennsylvania Election Results

VH8lQnL.png


"The lawsuit is seeking “all appropriate remedies,” which includes the vacating of electors that were committed to Joe Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania Legislature to call up their own electors. When the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, the Republican Party in Pennsylvania had its own electors cast votes for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, in a bid to preserve legal challenges in the state.


“The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college,” according to the Trump statement, authored by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit will attempt to reverse several decisions that “eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud.”

The lawsuit says that these laws prohibited election officials from checking whether mail-in ballot signatures were genuine during Election Day canvassing, removed the right of certain campaigns to challenge the ballots when they were canvassed for forged signatures or other issues, prohibited campaign poll observers from getting close enough to the ballot-tabulation efforts in some areas like Philadelphia, and removing the statutory requirement stipulating that voters properly sign, address, and date mail ballots.

“Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” Trump’s lawyer John Eastman wrote (pdf), adding that “more than enough” ballots are involved to affect the election outcome.

Eastman asked that the Supreme Court require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to respond to the campaign’s filing by noon on Dec. 23. Boockvar’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin asserting that those states made unconstitutional changes to their election laws. In a 7–2 ruling not to hear the case, the court said that Texas lacked standing, a move that drew condemnation from Trump and other conservatives.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s top executives alleging that the state changed its mail-in ballot laws in an unconstitutional manner. The Supreme Court previously rejected the group’s request for immediate injunctive relief to block Pennsylvania from taking further steps to certify the 2020 election results.

Kelly’s lawyers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Dec. 11, docketed by the court on Dec. 15, which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong when it dismissed their case because the justices thought the plaintiffs filed their case with unreasonable delay. "

2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits

https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Hilarious…
 
Whoever loses will cry about bad elections....for 4 more years. I am glad I'm jot hoping so I can dit back and laugh.
 
It was not Trump who was rejected for "no standing." That's the point.

And what is 8 of 6?
You have to have evidence before you can even be considered. Humpers think the courts have nothing to do but hear made up shit with no evidence…..they expect everyone to be as gullible as they are.
 
Nothing will change with our corrupt government agencies until the Democrat Regime is removed from power.
Hilarious…..it’s the gop admin who out numbers democrats in criminal convictions 100-1. It’s Trump who is a convicted felon. It’s all of trumps coworkers who are his biggest political adversaries.
 
It was not Trump who was rejected for "no standing." That's the point.

And what is 8 of 6?
Well, that tells you how incompetent he is. You Humpers keep telling us there is so much evidence, and Trump can’t even provide it or convince his own appointed judges and his DOJ there is,
 

Forum List

Back
Top