Article: "Newsmax finally calls election for Biden amid Electoral College vote"

[Vico]

…
I think the verdict is in, Vico. The votes were ‘regularly given’. Unless you know of some evidence that no-one has been party to as yet? Can you let us know about it?

The forum will be closed by then, so no status. I can say that there are currently pending election lawsuits. The alternates were designated in seven states so that if there is a win in any related lawsuit the alternate slate of electors can be certified.

 

[TMC]

I can say that there are currently pending election lawsuits.

Serious question - what lawsuits remain?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I can say that there are currently pending election lawsuits.

Serious question - what lawsuits remain?

I know of these, and there may still be others:

• Emergency lawsuits to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to order officials in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to de-certify their 2020 election results.
• December 14, Trump v Oliver – Lawsuit regarding the use of drop boxes in the 2020 elections. (New Mexico District Court)

 

[TMC]

Emergency lawsuits to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to order officials in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to de-certify their 2020 election results.

I was not familiar with those. A quick search revealed an application related to Michigan that has been criticized as containing patently false information. I see the Pennsylvania matter on the docket, but I don’t understand how it is not barred by the previous suit from Penn. There is actually an interesting legal issue lurking in that one, but not enough votes are at issue to change the result in Pennsylvania.

Given the small number of votes at issue in the PA case, even if Trump wins all of these it would probably not change the outcome (and I have not seen anything that suggests the court will even hear them.) Time will tell, obviously, but I am guessing the Court wipes these off their docket before Christmas.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Emergency lawsuits to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to order officials in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to de-certify their 2020 election results.

I was not familiar with those. A quick search revealed an application related to Michigan that has been criticized as containing patently false information…

I don’t know about the Pennsylvania case. For the SCOTUS case 20-815 (Docketed December 15, 2020):

Supplemental Authority – Rule 18.10

• Dec 11, 2020 Michigan – Rule 20 – Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus.
• Dec 12, 2020 Arizona – Rule 20 – Bowyer et al., v. Ducey, et al
• Dec 12, 2020 Wisconsin – Rule 20 – Feehan v. Wisconsin Election Commission, et al.
• Dec 11, 2020 Georgia – Rule 20 – Pearson et al. v. Kemp, et al.

 

[TMC]

I didn’t realize that Michigan was a writ of mandamus. This reveals a gross understanding of writs of mandamus - merely pleading it likely destroys that claim. I don’t know much about the others cases. Still even if all went for Trump (and none will), I don’t think the math works for him.

 

[Vico]

…

The lower court for SCOTUS case 20-815 is United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Rule 18.10 is that any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a jurisdictional statement is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last filing.

Exhibit A is: Interim Report of Antrim County, Michigan Forensic Examination of Dominion Voting
Systems Equipment.

 

[Feanor2]

Lololol. You really think that Trump may win?? I mean you actually even entertain that thought?

 

[TMC]

Rule 18.10 is that any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a jurisdictional statement is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last filing.

That doesn’t matter, if what they are truly seeking is mandamus. Mandamus will generally only lie where a public official is refusing or failing to perform an action that must be performed and for which there is no discretionary decision involved. In this case, the petitioners are asking the Court to order that Michigan should have exercised its discretion to set aside the election results in the face of the “evidence” they claim to have.

In the first instance, I do not believe that Michigan has the discretion to set aside its voters’ will. As importantly, if it is a discretionary act, it removes it from the orbit of mandamus.

 

[Vico]

…

That doesn’t matter, if what they are truly seeking is mandamus. Mandamus will generally only lie where a public official is refusing or failing to perform an action that must be performed and for which there is no discretionary decision involved. In this case, the petitioners are asking the Court to order that Michigan should have exercised its discretion to set aside the election results in the face of the “evidence” they claim to have.

In the first instance, I do not believe that Michigan has the discretion to set aside its voters’ will. As importantly, if it is a discretionary act, it removes it from the orbit of mandamus.

The case contains supplementary information for four other cases. So are you referring only to Michigan?

 

[TMC]

The case contains supplementary information for four other cases. So are you referring only to Michigan?

I am talking about 20-815, which is the Michigan case. Not sure what you mean by one filing supplementing all the cases. Have the cases been consolidated? I don’t think you can group supplement like that.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The case contains supplementary information for four other cases. So are you referring only to Michigan?

I am talking about 20-815, which is the Michigan case. Not sure what you mean by one filing supplementing all the cases. Have the cases been consolidated? I don’t think you can group supplement like that.

That docket refers four cases. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...Michigan Notice of Supplemental Authority.pdf

A similar Notice of Supplemental Authority is being filed in each of these four cases

 

[TMC]

I read the supplement. It appears to be only filed in 20-815. (Which, again, is framed as a case for mandamus, but looking at the pleading I don’t think that is what they are really asking for.) It is also a bit of a hash. It is mostly a bunch of conclusory statements about the law, which are mostly incorrect. The attachment looks like the opinion of some guy who pinky swears that he can tell the voting machines are rigged because he went to Harvard. That issue would not be something to be settle at the SC, and it seems like it has been rejected repeated by the proper courts.

It is also notable that we are down to like the 50th argument. Litigants rarely start with their bad arguments and hold the good stuff until after their 50th loss. We are at the dregs, and everyone knows that.

 

[catholiclala]

The utter ridiculousness of people still holding on to these false claims is alarming. It’s official, people have made an idol of Trump. Classic ego-centric power moves and classic responses by supporters unwilling to accept reality and that their sources are neither credible nor have any substance. I literally had to dump a man two weeks ago after he told me he believes this nonsense along with many other conspiracy theories and superstitions. The fact that this thinking is so widespread is truly eye-opening.

 

[Vico]

I read the supplement. It appears to be only filed in 20-815. (Which, again, is framed as a case for mandamus, but looking at the pleading I don’t think that is what they are really asking for.) It is also a bit of a hash. It is mostly a bunch of conclusory statements about the law, which are mostly incorrect. The attachment looks like the opinion of some guy who pinky swears that he can tell the voting machines are rigged because he went to Harvard. That issue would not be something to be settle at the SC, and it seems like it has been rejected repeated by the proper courts.

It is also notable that we are down to like the 50th argument. Litigants rarely start with their bad arguments and hold the good stuff until after their 50th loss. We are at the dregs, and everyone knows that.

“A similar Notice of Supplemental Authority is being filed in each of these four cases”.

Harvard MBA is only one of his qualifications, but then you already know that if you read it.

I read in the Forensic Examination of Dominion Voting Systems Equipment a conclusion that “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”.

 

[TMC]

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”

Yeah, I saw that ridiculous statement. You are aware that both DHS and DOJ looked into those allegations and found no support for them?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”

Yeah, I saw that ridiculous statement. You are aware that both DHS and DOJ looked into those allegations and found no support for them?

I am not aware that anyone has looked into the facts contained in the exhibit submitted, regardless of any conclusions made by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. that may be incorrect or correct.

 

[TMC]

I am not aware that anyone has looked into the facts contained in the exhibit submitted, regardless of any conclusions made by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. that may be incorrect or correct.

Really? You have not seen the numerous reports of the DOJ and DHS work on election security? The ones that found no fraud (in the DOJ case) and very solid election security (in the DHS case), with both saying they found no support for a problem with Dominion?

 

[po18guy]

If I understand your veiled comments, hold your post up to a mirror. I believe it will then be more realistic.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I am not aware that anyone has looked into the facts contained in the exhibit submitted, regardless of any conclusions made by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. that may be incorrect or correct.

Really? You have not seen the numerous reports of the DOJ and DHS work on election security? The ones that found no fraud (in the DOJ case) and very solid election security (in the DHS case), with both saying they found no support for a problem with Dominion?

I am only addressing the report in Exhibit A. I do not know what DOJ and DHS looked at.