December 2020
« Oct   Jan »
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

Archive for December, 2020

Why I will not accept Joe Biden as President

Newt Gingrich: Why I will NOT accept
Joe Biden as president

The Right Scoop • 322 COMMENTS

Newt Gingrich wrote an op-ed this week explaining why he will not accept Joe Biden as president. Here’s part of what he said and it’s not as much about the election as some might think:
WASHINGTON TIMES – In 2016, I supported an outsider candidate, who was rough around the edges and in the Andrew Jackson school of controversial assaults on the old order. When my candidate won, it was blamed on the Russians. We now know (four years later) Hillary Clinton’s own team financed the total lie that fueled this attack.
Members of the FBI twice engaged in criminal acts to help it along — once in avoiding prosecution of someone who had deleted 33,000 emails and had a subordinate use a hammer to physically destroy hard drives, and a second time by lying to FISA judges to destroy Gen. Michael Flynn and spy on then-candidate Donald Trump and his team. The national liberal media aided and abetted every step of the way. All this was purely an attempt to cripple the new president and lead to the appointment of a special counsel — who ultimately produced nothing.
Now, people in my world are told it is time to stop resisting and cooperate with the new president. But we remember that the Democrats wanted to cooperate with Mr. Trump so much that they began talking about his impeachment before he even took office. The Washington Post ran a story on Democrat impeachment plots the day of the inauguration.
In fact, nearly 70 Democratic lawmakers boycotted his inauguration. A massive left-wing demonstration was staged in Washington the day after, where Madonna announced she dreamed of blowing up the White House to widespread applause. These same forces want me to cooperate with their new president. I find myself adopting the Nancy Pelosi model of constant resistance. Nothing I have seen from Mr. Biden since the election offers me any hope that he will reach out to the more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump.
So, I am not reacting to the votes so much as to the whole election environment.
When Twitter and Facebook censored the oldest and fourth largest newspaper (founded by Alexander Hamilton) because it accurately reported news that could hurt Mr. Biden’s chances — where were The New York Times and The Washington Post?
The truth of the Hunter Biden story is now becoming impossible to avoid or conceal. The family of the Democrat nominee for president received at least $5 million from an entity controlled by our greatest adversary. It was a blatant payoff, and most Americans who voted for Mr. Biden never heard of it — or were told before the election it was Russian disinformation. Once they did hear of it, 17% said they would have switched their votes, according to a poll by the Media Research Center. That’s the entire election. The censorship worked exactly as intended.
Typically, newspapers and media outlets band together when press freedom is threatened by censorship. Where was the sanctimonious “democracy dies in darkness?” Tragically, The Washington Post is now part of the darkness.

The election process itself was the final straw in creating the crisis of confidence which is accelerating and deepening for many millions of Americans.

Aside from a constant stream of allegations of outright fraud, there are some specific outrages — any one of which was likely enough to swing the entire election.

Officials in virtually every swing state broke their states’ own laws to send out millions of ballots or ballot applications to every registered voter. It was all clearly documented in the Texas lawsuit, which was declined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on Texas’ procedural standing — not the merits of the case. That’s the election.

In addition, it’s clear that virtually every swing state essentially suspended normal requirements for verifying absentee ballots. Rejection rates were an order of magnitude lower than in a normal year. In Georgia, rejection rates dropped from 6.5% in 2016 to 0.2% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, it went from 1% in 2016 to .003% in 2020. Nevada fell from 1.6% to .75%. There is no plausible explanation other than that they were counting a huge number of ballots — disproportionately for Mr. Biden — that normally would not have passed muster. That’s the election.

Newt details more in his op-ed that he finds incredibly disturbing, but here is how he ends it:

For more than four years, the entire establishment mobilized against the elected president of the United States as though they were an immune system trying to kill a virus. Now, they are telling us we are undermining democracy.

You have more than 74 million voters who supported President Trump despite everything — and given the election mess, the number could easily be significantly higher. The truth is tens of millions of Americans are deeply alienated and angry.

If Mr. Biden governs from the left — and he will almost certainly be forced to — that number will grow rapidly, and we will win a massive election in 2022.

Given this environment, I have no interest in legitimizing the father of a son who Chinese Communist Party members boast about buying. Nor do I have any interest in pretending that the current result is legitimate or honorable. It is simply the final stroke of a four-year establishment-media power grab. It has been perpetrated by people who have broken the law, cheated the country of information, and smeared those of us who believe in America over China, history over revisionism, and the liberal ideal of free expression over cancel culture.

I write this in genuine sorrow, because I think we are headed toward a serious, bitter struggle in America. This extraordinary, coordinated four-year power grab threatens the fabric of our country and the freedom of every American.

Newt is as brilliant as they come and laid this out in a way that I believe is very compelling. As he said in his closing, the election was simply a final stroke in a game Democrats and their media defenders have been playing for the last four years. They couldn’t get Trump with the Mueller report. They couldn’t get Trump with the Ukraine call and they couldn’t impeach him. The last resort was to use the pandemic against him and even that didn’t work. So they used the pandemic as a front to steal the election with mail-in ballots, something Trump had long said would be the case, and not even the Supreme Court would step in to stop the steal. And yet, as they’ve been doing since November 3rd, the media and Democrats are now demanding that we all bend down and kiss Joe Biden’s ring, as if everything is legitimate about his ‘victory’ and the last four years of trying to destroy Trump never happened.
I stand with Newt! Read the full op-ed here.

Martial Law Rumors ‘Fake News, Bad Reporting’

Trump: Martial Law Rumors ‘Fake News, Bad Reporting’

a graphic illustration of an american flag emblazoned with fake news
(Chris Dorney/Dreamstime)

By Eric Mack    |   Sunday, 20 December 2020 09:29 AM

While the use of martial law as been broached by Newsmax TV guests, the ire appears to be directed at The New York Times report President Trump brought up the topic Friday with the White House inner circle.

Trump tweeted late Saturday night:

“Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!”

Martial law was alluded to by Georgia attorney L. Lin Wood earlier this month on Newsmax TV’s “The Count”:

“If the Supreme Court does not act, I think the president should declare some extent of Martial law, and he should hold off an stay the electoral college.”Because we cannot have in this country, an election of our leader, where you have massive evidence of fraud and illegality. This country has to have a vote that has integrity. And the electoral college does not need to meet and vote until we have resolved these issues.”

Then, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn told Thursday’s “Greg Kelly Reports” about “military capabilities”:

“He could immediately on his order seize every single one of these machines around the country on his order. He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It’s not unprecedented.”I mean, these people are out there talking about martial law like it’s something that we’ve never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times.”

The peaceful transition of power has been a political lightning rod since the 2016 presidential election, before Trump even assumed the White House. At the end of the 2020 campaign, Trump vowed support for a peaceful transition of power, but he wanted an “honest election,” he told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie at a townhall debate in Miami.

Related Stories:
© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Report on Voting Irregularities: ‘The Emperor, In the Election, Has No Clothes’

Peter Navarro Issues Report on Voting

Irregularities: ‘The Emperor, In the Election, Has No Clothes’

December 17, 2020 Updated: December 17, 2020

Peter Navarro, who serves as an adviser to President Donald Trump, concluded in a report on the integrity of the 2020 election that the allegations of irregularities are serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to overturn the results.
The findings of the report (pdf), released on Dec. 17 and titled “The Immaculate Deception,” support the claim that the election “may well have been stolen” from Trump. Navarro, who is director of the White House Office for Trade and Manufacturing Policy, produced the report in his capacity as a private citizen.
“If these election irregularities are not fully investigated prior to Inauguration Day and thereby effectively allowed to stand, this nation runs the very real risk of never being able to have a fair presidential election again,” Navarro said in the report.
On a call with reporters explaining his findings, Navarro said his role in compiling the report is to say that, “the emperor, in the election, has no clothes.”
Fielding questions about what, at this stage, can be done, given that numerous legal challenges brought by the Trump campaign have been dismissed and the Electoral College has already voted, Navarro said, “with every day that goes by, it becomes more complicated” and “options narrow.”
Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, in a recent interview with The Epoch Times, said there’s still time for state legislatures to convene in special sessions and authorize alternate slates of electors.
While Navarro declined to specify a proposed remedy in light of his findings aside from a thorough investigation, he said, “the last thing this country needs is an Inauguration Day where we have what is perceived to be an illegal and illegitimate president of the United States.”
In making an urgent call for a probe of the allegations, Navarro argued that “if, in fact, compelling evidence comes to light proving the election was indeed stolen after a fait accompli Biden inauguration, we as a country run the very real risk that the very center of our great American union will not hold.”
In the report, Navarro examines six types of irregularities in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—states in which certified results show Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holding a lead and where the vote continues to be hotly contested.
Epoch Times PhotoSummary of findings regarding election irregularities in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)
Navarro said that the pattern of irregularities across the six states suggests “a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to ‘stuff the ballot box’ and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket.”
He argues that the weight of the evidence, which comes from sources that include over 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits and declarations, testimony in a variety of settings, think tank analyses, and press reports, is “more than sufficient to swing the outcome in favor of President Trump.”
Biden’s margin of victory in all the battleground states except Michigan is less than the number of ballots that Navarro flags as possibly illegal.
Rather than any single “silver bullet” of election irregularity responsible for an unfavorable outcome for Trump, Navarro argues that “this was theft by a thousand cuts across six dimensions and six battleground states.”

Outright Voter Fraud

Epoch Times PhotoSummary of findings regarding outright voter fraud in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)

Ballot Mishandling
Another major dimension of alleged irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, which Navarro calls a “multifaceted problem” that featured in five out of six of the battleground states, includes such factors as no voter ID checks, signature match check abuses, “naked ballots” that lack an outer envelope, and broken chain-of-custody records.
Epoch Times Photo
Summary of findings regarding ballot mishandling in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)
Contestable Process Fouls
The third dimension of election irregularities includes abuses regarding poll watchers and observers, such as denial of access or lack of meaningful access, as well as violations of state law in the area of mail-in and absentee ballots. It also includes illegal ballot curing by poll workers and violations of voter registration procedures.
Epoch Times Photo
Summary of findings regarding contestable process fouls in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)

Equal Protection Clause Violations

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution features the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that no state may deny its citizens equal protection under the law. Questionable practices in this regard identified by Navarro include applying higher standards of certification and ID verification to in-person voters compared to mail-in and absentee balloting, and different standards of ballot curing for different counties.
Epoch Times Photo
Summary of findings regarding equal protection clause issues in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)

Voting Machine Irregularities

There were two major types of voting machine irregularities noted by Navarro in the report: large-scale inaccuracies and vote switching from one candidate to another, which caused vote surges in favor of one candidate.
voting machine irrelugalities 2Summary of findings regarding voting machine irregularities in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)

Significant Statistical Anomalies

The final category of irregularities detailed in Navarro’s report is statistical anomalies, which include such phenomena as significant changes in absentee ballot rejection rates compared to prior elections, and unusual vote surges.
Epoch Times PhotoSummary of findings regarding statistical anomalies in six battleground states. (Source: Data – The Immaculate Deception Report; Design – ET)
In concluding his report, Navarro argues that “the failure to aggressively and fully investigate” the irregularities he has flagged “signal a failure not just of our anti-Trump mainstream media and censoring social media but also of both our legislative and judicial branches.”
Since Election Day, Trump and third-party groups have pursued legal challenges to the outcome of the election in the six battleground states. None of the efforts have so far borne fruit, including an interstate Supreme Court challenge brought by Texas and backed by 19 Republican attorneys general.
Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM


In the Supreme Court of the United States




Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.

Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little 2 or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.

 Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.

Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:


1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.

4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different

  1. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
  2. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors

. 7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:

  • Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more 5 than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
  • Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers—despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
  • Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.
  1. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court. In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4- 4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court. Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
  2. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.
  3. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of  that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.
  4. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31.
  5. Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.
  6. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
  7. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the 8 President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”). Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
  8. The number of absentee and mail-in ballots that have been handled unconstitutionally in Defendant States greatly exceeds the difference between the vote totals of the two candidates for President of the United States in each Defendant State.
  9. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future. This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review. The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.


  1. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this action because it is a “controvers[y] between two or more States” under Article III, § 2, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2018).
  2. In a presidential election, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 795. The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because “‘the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as 9 effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.’” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105 (2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)) (Bush II). In other words, Plaintiff State is acting to protect the interests of its respective citizens in the fair and constitutional conduct of elections used to appoint presidential electors.
  3. This Court’s Article III decisions indicate that only a state can bring certain claims. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007) (distinguishing citizen plaintiffs from citizen relators who sued in the name of a state); cf. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007) (courts owe states “special solicitude in standing analysis”). Moreover, redressability likely would undermine a suit against a single state officer or State because no one State’s electoral votes will make a difference in the election outcome. This action against multiple State defendants is the only adequate remedy for Plaintiff States, and this Court is the only court that can accommodate such a suit.
  4. Individual state courts do not—and under the circumstance of contested elections in multiple states, cannot—offer an adequate remedy to resolve election disputes within the timeframe set by the Constitution to resolve such disputes and to appoint a President via the electoral college. No court—other than this Court—can redress constitutional injuries spanning multiple States with the sufficient number of states joined as defendants or respondents to make a difference in the Electoral College.
  5. This Court is the sole forum in which to exercise the jurisdictional basis for this action.


  6. Plaintiff is the State of Texas, which is a sovereign State of the United States.
  7. Defendants are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which are sovereign States of the United States. LEGAL

  8. Under the Supremacy Clause, the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.” U.S. CONST. Art. VI, cl. 2. ‘
  9. “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college.” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104 (citing U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1).
  10. State legislatures have plenary power to set the process for appointing presidential electors: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” U.S. CONST. art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104 (“[T]he state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.” (emphasis added)).
  11. At the time of the Founding, most States did not appoint electors through popular statewide elections. In the first presidential election, six of the ten States that appointed electors did so by direct legislative appointment. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 29-30 (1892). 11
  12. In the second presidential election, nine of the fifteen States that appointed electors did so by direct legislative appointment. Id. at 30.
  13. In the third presidential election, nine of sixteen States that appointed electors did so by direct legislative appointment. Id. at 31. This practice persisted in lesser degrees through the Election of 1860. Id. at 32.30. Though “[h]istory has now favored the voter,” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104, “there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power [of appointing presidential electors] at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.” McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35 (emphasis added); cf. 3 U.S.C. § 2 (“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”).
  14. Given the State legislatures’ constitutional primacy in selecting presidential electors, the ability to set rules governing the casting of ballots and counting of votes cannot be usurped by other branches of state government.
  15. The Framers of the Constitution decided to select the President through the Electoral College “to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder” and to place “every practicable obstacle [to] cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” including “foreign powers” that might try to insinuate themselves into our elections. THE FEDERALIST NO. 68, at 410-11 (C. Rossiter, ed. 1961) (Madison, J.).
  16. Defendant States’ applicable laws are set out under the facts for each Defendant State.



  1. The use of absentee and mail-in ballots skyrocketed in 2020, not only as a public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic but also at the urging of mail-in voting’s proponents, and most especially executive branch officials in Defendant States. According to the Pew Research Center, in the 2020 general election, a record number of votes— about 65 million—were cast via mail compared to 33.5 million mail-in ballots cast in the 2016 general election—an increase of more than 94 percent.
  2. In the wake of the contested 2000 election, the bipartisan Jimmy Carter-James Baker commission identified absentee ballots as “the largest source of potential voter fraud.” BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM, at 46 (Sept. 2005).
  3. Concern over the use of mail-in ballots is not novel to the modern era, Dustin Waters, Mail-in Ballots Were Part of a Plot to Deny Lincoln Reelection in 1864, WASH. POST (Aug. 22, 2020),3 but it remains a current concern. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 194-96 & n.11 (2008); see also Texas Office of the Attorney General, AG Paxton Announces Joint Prosecution of Gregg County Organized Election Fraud in Mail-In Balloting Scheme (Sept. 24, 2020); Harriet Alexander & Ariel Zilber, Minneapolis police opens investigation into reports that Ilhan Omar’s supporters illegally harvested Democrat ballots in Minnesota, DAILY MAIL, Sept. 28, 2020. 3
  4. Absentee and mail-in voting are the primary opportunities for unlawful ballots to be cast. As a result of expanded absentee and mail-in voting in Defendant States, combined with Defendant States’ unconstitutional modification of statutory protections designed to ensure ballot integrity, Defendant States created a massive opportunity for fraud. In addition, the Defendant States have made it difficult or impossible to separate the constitutionally tainted mail-in ballots from all mail-in ballots.
  5. Rather than augment safeguards against illegal voting in anticipation of the millions of additional mail-in ballots flooding their States, Defendant States all materially weakened, or did away with, security measures, such as witness or signature verification procedures, required by their respective legislatures. Their legislatures established those commonsense safeguards to prevent—or at least reduce—fraudulent mail-in ballots.
  6. Significantly, in Defendant States, Democrat voters voted by mail at two to three times the rate of Republicans. Former Vice President Biden thus greatly benefited from this unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority, and the weakening of legislative mandated ballot security measures.
  7. The outcome of the Electoral College vote is directly affected by the constitutional violations committed by Defendant States. Plaintiff State complied with the Constitution in the process of appointing presidential electors for President Trump. Defendant States violated the Constitution in the process of appointing presidential electors by unlawfully abrogating state election laws designed to 14 protect the integrity of the ballots and the electoral process, and those violations proximately caused the appointment of presidential electors for former Vice President Biden. Plaintiff State will therefore be injured if Defendant States’ unlawfully certify these presidential electors. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
  8. Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes, with a statewide vote tally currently estimated at 3,363,951 for President Trump and 3,445,548 for former Vice President Biden, a margin of 81,597 votes.
  9. The number of votes affected by the various constitutional violations exceeds the margin of votes separating the candidates.
  10. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and the legislation did not include a severability clause.
  11. On August 7, 2020, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and others filed a complaint against Secretary Boockvar and other local election officials, seeking “a declaratory judgment that Pennsylvania existing signature verification procedures for mail-in voting” were unlawful for a number of reasons. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020).
  12. The Pennsylvania Department of State quickly settled with the plaintiffs, issuing revised guidance on September 11, 2020, stating in relevant part: “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not 15 authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
  13. This guidance is contrary to Pennsylvania law. First, Pennsylvania Election Code mandates that, for non-disabled and non-military voters, all applications for an absentee or mail-in ballot “shall be signed by the applicant.” 25 PA. STAT. §§ 3146.2(d) & 3150.12(c). Second, Pennsylvania’s voter signature verification requirements are expressly set forth at 25 PA. STAT. 350(a.3)(1)-(2) and § 3146.8(g)(3)-(7).
  14. The Pennsylvania Department of State’s guidance unconstitutionally did away with Pennsylvania’s statutory signature verification requirements. Approximately 70 percent of the requests for absentee ballots were from Democrats and 25 percent from Republicans. Thus, this unconstitutional abrogation of state election law greatly inured to former Vice President Biden’s benefit.
  15. In addition, in 2019, Pennsylvania’s legislature enacted bipartisan election reforms, 2019 Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2019-77, that set inter alia a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on election day for a county board of elections to receive a mail-in ballot. 25 PA. STAT. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c). Acting under a generally worded clause that “Elections shall be free and equal,” PA. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 1, a 4-3 majority of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020), extended that deadline to three days after Election Day and adopted a presumption that even non-postmarked ballots were presumptively timely.
  16. Pennsylvania’s election law also requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: “Watchers shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded.” 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b). Local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties decided not to follow 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b) for the opening, counting, and recording of absentee and mail-in ballots.
  17. Prior to the election, Secretary Boockvar sent an email to local election officials urging them to provide opportunities for various persons—including political parties—to contact voters to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This process clearly violated several provisions of the state election code.
  • Section 3146.8(a) requires: “The county boards of election, upon receipt of official absentee ballots in sealed official absentee ballot envelopes as provided under this article and mail-in ballots as in sealed official mail-in ballot envelopes as provided under Article XIII-D,1 shall safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers until they are to be canvassed by the county board of elections.”
  • Section 3146.8(g)(1)(ii) provides that mail-in ballots shall be canvassed (if they are received by eight o’clock p.m. on election day) in the manner prescribed by this subsection.
  • Section 3146.8(g)(1.1) provides that the first look at the ballots shall be “no earlier than seven o’clock a.m. on election day.” And the hour for this “pre-canvas” must be publicly announced at least 17 48 hours in advance. Then the votes are counted on election day.
  1. By removing the ballots for examination prior to seven o’clock a.m. on election day, Secretary Boockvar created a system whereby local officials could review ballots without the proper announcements, observation, and security. This entire scheme, which was only followed in Democrat majority counties, was blatantly illegal in that it permitted the illegal removal of ballots from their locked containers prematurely.
  2. Statewide election officials and local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, aware of the historical Democrat advantage in those counties, violated Pennsylvania’s election code and adopted the differential standards favoring voters in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties with the intent to favor former Vice President Biden. See Verified Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 4:20-cv-02078-MWB (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2020) at ¶¶ 3-6, 9, 11, 100-143.
  3. Absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were thus evaluated under an illegal standard regarding signature verification. It is now impossible to determine which ballots were properly cast and which ballots were not.
  4. The changed process allowing the curing of absentee and mail-in ballots in Allegheny and Philadelphia counties is a separate basis resulting in an unknown number of ballots being treated in an unconstitutional manner inconsistent with Pennsylvania statute. Id.
  5. In addition, a great number of ballots were received after the statutory deadline and yet 18 were counted by virtue of the fact that Pennsylvania did not segregate all ballots received after 8:00 pm on November 3, 2020. Boockvar’s claim that only about 10,000 ballots were received after this deadline has no way of being proven since Pennsylvania broke its promise to the Court to segregate ballots and comingled perhaps tens, or even hundreds of thousands, of illegal late ballots.
  6. On December 4, 2020, fifteen members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives led by Rep. Francis X. Ryan issued a report to Congressman Scott Perry (the “Ryan Report,” App. 139a-144a) stating that “[t]he general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was fraught with inconsistencies, documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing that the reliability of the mail-in votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to rely upon.”
  7. The Ryan Report’s findings are startling, including:
    Ballots with NO MAILED date. That total is 9,005.
    • Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed Date. That total is 58,221.
    • Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date. That total is 51,200. Id. 143a.
  8. These nonsensical numbers alone total 118,426 ballots and exceed Mr. Biden’s margin of 81,660 votes over President Trump. But these discrepancies pale in comparison to the discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s reported data concerning the 19 number of mail-in ballots distributed to the populace—now with no longer subject to legislated mandated signature verification requirements.
  9. The Ryan Report also states as follows: [I]n a data file received on November 4, 2020, the Commonwealth’s PA Open Data sites reported over 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out. The CSV file from the state on November 4 depicts 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out but on November 2, the information was provided that only 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. This discrepancy of approximately 400,000 ballots from November 2 to November 4 has not been explained. Id. at 143a-44a. (Emphasis added).
  10. These stunning figures illustrate the out-of-control nature of Pennsylvania’s mail-in balloting scheme. Democrats submitted mail-in ballots at more than two times the rate of Republicans. This number of constitutionally tainted ballots far exceeds the approximately 81,660 votes separating the candidates.

NOTICE:  This actually goes on listing up to 144 violations you may review the whole law suit which is over 140 pages.Cut * paste URL below.


WHEREFORE,  Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:

  1. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted. 40
  3. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.
  4. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.
  5. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.
  6. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.
  7. Award costs to Plaintiff State.
  8. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.


Editorial: At This Critical Time,
President Trump Should Take Action

President Donald Trump raises his fist at the end of a rally to support Republican Senate candidates at Valdosta Regional Airport in Valdosta, Ga., on Dec. 5, 2020. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump raises his fist at the end of a
rally to support Republican Senate candidates at
Valdosta Regional Airport in Valdosta, Ga., on
Dec. 5, 2020. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

Editorial Board

December 14, 2020 Updated: December 14, 2020
The 2020 presidential election is unlike any before and requires unprecedented measures to protect it, our republic, and our future.
The degree and scale of voter fraud was unprecedented. In swing states, President Donald Trump had large leads on election night. Then, late at night counting was stopped, while election observers were ushered out. And then, huge, statistically impossible vote dumps occurred, giving Joe Biden the lead.  This pattern, which occurred only in the states where Biden had to reverse the results, and hadn’t occurred in previous elections, points to a coordinated effort to steal the election.
This effort likely involved manipulation of the vote by Dominion Voting Systems. According to a forensic audit of its machines and software in Michigan, ”the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”  In addition, various forms of ballot harvesting and election irregularities are attested to in a thousand affidavits.
There are reports—needing confirmation—of foreign influence helping to undermine our election.
President Trump has referred to our election system as being under “coordinated assault and siege.”
As a consequence, our form of government is at risk. If an election can be won through such dishonest means as were used in 2020, then one can expect the next election will be won in the same manner. The American people will lose their right to vote.  If there was a coordinated effort to steal the election, those actions amount to subversion.
In addition, if the United States in effect has one-party rule, then legal changes may fundamentally alter our system.
The Democrats have spoken of ending the Electoral College, assuring that the predominantly Democratic big cities will elect the president; and packing the Supreme Court, to ensure that Democratic-appointed judges have the majority.  But as serious as these threats to our republic are, they don’t get to the heart of what is at stake.
At its root, the current danger is not about whether Biden or Trump wins. It is not about the Democratic or Republican parties.  The United States is facing an evil force that wants to destroy our country and in fact destroy all good things in humanity.  This election is the climax of the battle between freedom and communism, between good and evil.
With the fall of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, people in the United States and around the world relaxed, thinking the communist threat had ended. But communism has never slept. Globalization strengthened it and weakened the United States.  Good and evil cannot compromise. They are like fire and ice. Giving in to evil only encourages it. A victory for communism in this election would result in a defeat for freedom everywhere. Humanity would be plunged into a long, dark night.
On Dec. 5 in Georgia, Trump said of those who want to steal the election, “These people want to go further than socialism, they want to go into a communistic form of government, and I have no doubt about it.”  How will the United States be defended? Local officials are often those most complicit in the corruption of the election. Judges, because of the doctrine of separation of powers, are often reluctant to tell states how to run their elections. The U.S. Congress has no role unless the Electoral College fails to deliver a winner.
Trump’s destiny is to fill the breach. He has taken an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, and he has the presidential powers to do so.
Trump should use those powers as President to safeguard the future of our Republic and arrest those who have conspired to deprive people of their rights through election fraud. The Insurrection Act enables Trump to use the military to seize the key electoral evidence in contested states and deliver a transparent, accurate accounting of the vote.
Our system is in crisis. Trump would act to restore the rule of law.
Through opening the books, honesty can defeat fraud. The wishes of the majority of the people will be realized, and the victory sought by communism defeated.



The Epoch Times

Attorney Sidney Powell on Sunday alerted the U.S. Supreme Court to new evidence filed in her legal team’s Michigan lawsuit related to the state’s Dominion Voting Systems voting equipment, as she called on the court to intervene in her cases challenging the integrity and outcome of the 2020 elections in four states.
Powell in a letter notified the court of two batches of recently obtained evidence, the first of which she said came from an initial forensic analysis of Dominion voting machines in Michigan’s Antrim County that was prepared under a protective order issued on Dec. 4 by Judge Kevin Elsenheimer, who is overseeing the case.
The former federal prosecutor, who has been seen working alongside Trump’s legal team pushing election challenges, said that the initial results of the ongoing expert analysis provide “new information and evidence” as it relates to the Nov. 3 election in Antrim County.
“By logical extrapolation, [the analysis] explains voting anomalies and evinces fraud throughout the Dominion Voting Systems,” Powell wrote. “The new evidence specifically provides additional and conclusive evidence of election fraud and irregularities pertaining to the Nov. 3, 2020 election.”
“The final ‘certified tally’ in Michigan reflected a slim margin of Mr. Biden’s vote count to be 146,000 over that of President Trump, with just under 10 million people living in Michigan,” she said.
Powell asserted that the newly obtained evidence “is directly relevant to Petitioners’ Emergency Petition Under Rule 20 for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus” before the Supreme Court, as it corroborates and supports the existing record of evidence proving massive election fraud, multiple violations of the Michigan Election Code, federal statutes, and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
It came shortly after Powell announced Friday that she had filed emergency requests to the nation’s top court, asking the justices to order officials in Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona to immediately de-certify their 2020 election results and to prevent the states’ presidential electors from casting votes in the electoral college.
An emergency filing is also anticipated for her Wisconsin case. The filings aim to maintain the status quo in the states in order to give the Supreme Court time to consider the allegations presented in her lawsuits.
Sidney PowellSidney Powell in Washington on Dec. 13, 2020. (Otabius Williams/The Epoch Times)
Her letter outlines new affidavits from two forensic experts who allege that international interference took place in the 2020 election, and that Dominion systems were connected to foreign systems around the globe.
Powell said that two Military Intelligence analysts have signed sworn affidavits stating that the SSL certificates from were used multiple times from Canada, Serbia, and the United States.
“Additionally, the affidavits detail evidence demonstrating that Sequoia Capital seeded or funded Dominion Voting Systems and HSBC Toronto acquired from Dominion Voting Systems 18 patents representing intellectual property of Dominion Voting Systems. These patents all pertain to direct interfaces with the U.S. election process by means of ballots, systems, and machines,” Powell wrote.
“This affidavit further reveals that a Toronto-based Chinese bank (HSBC) secures the intellectual patents pertaining to direct access to the U.S. election systems and equipment from Dominion Voting Systems,” Powell said in her letter, stating that the information contained in the affidavits further demonstrates foreign interference in the Nov. 3 election.
Powell last month said that prior analysis of server logs on Dominion’s machines in Georgia primary elections showed “remote access into those servers in the middle of the night when no election workers were around,” possibly by Dominion employees overseas or “on behalf of adverse nation-states such as Iran and China.”
The allegation is based on a redacted declaration of a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence.
The attorney told The Epoch Times last week that due to alleged foreign interference in the Nov. 3 election, “it’s more than sufficient to trigger” President Donald Trump’s executive order on foreign interference issued in 2018.
Powell asked that the latest evidence from the forensic examination be filed under seal, citing “significant implications for national security” and due to the protective order under which it was obtained. She noted that there is a hearing in the Michigan court scheduled for Monday morning on the plaintiffs’ motion to unseal the report.
“This evidence is crucial to a just resolution of the cases pending before this court,” Powell concluded.
Janita Kan and Jan Jekielek contributed to this report.

BIDEN: “I am not going to violate the Constitution.”  “Does not intend to push the limits of his executive authority.” He’s a Socialist Democrat, they don’t believe in the Constitution!

Biden Admits ‘Defund the Police’ Beat ‘the”
Living Hell Out of’ Democrats

‘I…don’t think we should get too far ahead of ourselves on dealing with police reform…’
Democrat candidate Joe Biden admitted that the ‘Defund the Police’ movement destroyed Democrats’ chances of winning down-ballot races during the 2020 election, according to leaked audio of Biden’s recent meeting with civil rights leaders.
The group of activists pressed Biden about the need to be aggressive in rolling back some of the Trump administration’s policies and passing police reform initiatives, but Biden warned that aggressive action could backfire.  “I also don’t think we should get too far ahead of ourselves on dealing with police reform in that, because they’ve already labeled us as being ‘defund the police’ anything we put forward in terms of the organizational structure to change policing — which I promise you, will occur. Promise you,” Biden said, according to The Intercept.
Biden specifically mentioned the Georgia Senate run-off elections, which will determine who controls the chamber.
“Just think to yourself and give me advice whether we should do that before Jan. 5th, because that’s how they beat the living hell out of us across the country, saying that we’re talking about defunding the police. We’re not. We’re talking about holding them accountable,” Biden continued.  Biden also told civil rights leaders he does not intend to push the limits of his executive authority.
“There’s some things that I’m going to be able to do by executive order,” Biden reportedly said. “I’m not going to hesitate to do it, but what I’m not going to do is I’m not going to say, ‘On Day 1, I’m gonna have an executive order to do this!’ Not within the constitutional authority. I am not going to violate the Constitution.”  Biden is one of several top Democrats who have warned party members not to get caught up in leftist initiatives, such as ‘Defund the Police.’
Several House members blame leftists’ support of the movement as the reason so many Democratic candidates and incumbents lost their races.


REPORT: Barr Kept Hunter Biden
Investigations Hush-Hush Before
the Election

Joe Biden ‘deeply proud of his son’…


A scanned ballot on a computer screen at the Gwinnett Voter Registrations and Elections office in Lawrenceville, Ga., on Nov. 8, 2020. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

Election Supervisor Shows on Video How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes

December 10, 2020 Updated: December 11, 2020

An elections supervisor in Coffee County, Georgia, demonstrated in recent videos posted online how Dominion Voting Systems voting software allows votes to be changed through an “adjudication” process. The process allows the operator to add vote marks to a scanned ballot as well as invalidate vote marks already on the ballot.
Adjudication should only serve to resolve issues of voters marking ballots incorrectly, such as filling the bubbles in a way that doesn’t clearly show who he or she voted for. Yet it appears a substantial number of ballots went through that process, at least in some Georgia counties. As the Coffee County supervisor, Misty Martin, showed, the system can be set to allow adjudication of all scanned ballots, even blank ones, and effectively allow the operator to vote those ballots.
The videos were posted by local news site Douglas Now, whose publisher, Robert Preston, told The Epoch Times they were filmed this week in the local election office.
“According to our election folks, this Dominion system is flawed, not secure, and open to manipulation if someone were so inclined,” Preston said in a Facebook message.
It’s not clear how many ballots were adjudicated statewide. The office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger didn’t respond to a request for comment.
In Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, over 106,000 ballots were adjudicated by Nov. 4, said Richard Barron, the county’s director of elections, during a Nov. 4 press conference. In total, more than half a million ballots were cast in the county. Democrat Joe Biden leads Fulton with 381,144 votes compared to President Donald Trump’s 137,240.

Georgia is a key battleground state, controlling 16 electoral votes. The current results show Biden leading Trump by less than 12,000 votes.
“The adjudication process as allowed by Georgia law and election regulations provides for a bipartisan citizen panel to review any ballot within a batch that is flagged by the scanning software as not being clear about the voter’s intent,” said Fulton County spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt, in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times.
The panel should include one election worker, one Democrat representative, and one Republican representative. Photos taken in Fulton and Gwinnett counties indeed show three-member groups sitting around computer screens scrutinizing ballots.
“The bipartisan voter panel, not workers, performs that review to determine whether the voter’s intent is clear,” Corbitt said.  She indicated that the number cited by Barron referred to a total number of ballots in batches that went to adjudication, but not every ballot in each batch was adjudicated.  “When a batch of ballots has been adjudicated it means that any ballots flagged within that batch has gone through that citizen adjudication process,” she said.
Each batch reflects a stack of several dozen ballots fed into a ballot scanner.
Brad Raffensperger
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holds a press conference on the status of ballot counting in Atlanta, Georgia, Nov. 6, 2020. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)
Corbitt didn’t respond to any specific questions regarding the number of individual adjudicated ballots in the county, who was on the citizen panels, and whether the work of the panels can be verified through available video footage of the tabulation process.  “We did have panelist adjudicating the ballots, every time they were scheduled by Fulton County Elections Division,” Trey Kelly, chairman of Fulton County Republican Party, told The Epoch Times via email.
It appears the work of the panels wasn’t affected by the restrictions imposed in response to the CCP virus pandemic. Poll watchers in many states, including Georgia, have complained they were kept so far from the election workers they couldn’t meaningfully observe what was being done.  The Georgia and Gwinnett branches of the Republican Party didn’t respond to requests for comment on the adjudication process and citizen panel participation.
The Coffee County videos suggest the adjudication process can be accessed by any operator of the Dominion software regardless of whether any observers are present.  Martin said an operator of the software can change the votes with no trace of who did it or which ballots were changed. The system would only mark that at least one ballot in the batch was adjudicated, but “it can’t be tracked to exactly what ballot it was,” she said.


Epoch Times PhotoA Fulton County employee moves voting machine transporters to be stored at the the Fulton County Election Preparation Center in Atlanta, Ga., on Nov. 4, 2020. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

Dominion didn’t respond to emailed questions regarding the adjudication feature of its software.

A Dominion brochure advertises that “ballot changes always preserve the voter’s original intent. Anyone reviewing a ballot will be able to see how the voter marked their ballot, how the scanner interpreted the intent, and how the ballot was adjudicated.”

Gabriel Sterling, voting system implementation manager for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, addressed the Coffee County videos during a Dec. 10 press conference:  “In that system, there’s an audit mark that goes along with it and log files so we can see who has done what. So that’s kind of how adjudication works.”

Information from Gwinnett County, which also went for Biden, indicates only absentee ballots are subject to adjudication, since on election day, people mark their choices on a machine, which then prints out the ballot—this, at least in theory, eliminates the possibility of the voter marking the ballot wrong.

The adjudication process actually started weeks before the election, the county says on its website, since the state election board allowed counties to start opening absentee ballots and scanning them on Oct. 19. The state is getting sued over that decision since the state’s law says absentee ballots can only be opened on Election Day.

On Nov. 3, the county reported that since Oct. 19, “the [adjudication] review panels completed a total of 5,900 batches of ballots.”  That would easily account for all the more than 120,000 absentee ballots cast in the county, indicating that all or nearly all batches would be marked in the system as adjudicated.  People who vote early in person in Georgia also cast absentee ballots. It’s not clear whether those ballots are marked by hand or by a machine and whether they are subject to adjudication.

Gwinnett County didn’t respond to emailed questions.

Another question is what happens with the adjudicated ballot. It appears that when the scanner fails to read a ballot for some reason, the ballot needs to be duplicated through a vote marking machine—the voter’s choices are entered by an election worker on a touch screen and the machine then prints out a replacement ballot.

Videos from the absentee ballot counting center at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta show several people operating a machine that is apparently printing out replacement ballots. There appears to be nobody observing the process. The county spokeswoman didn’t provide a comment on those videos.

Epoch Times PhotoImages from security camera snapshots from the vote tabulation center at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Ga., on Nov. 3, 2020. (NTD)
The duplication process might explain why a polling manager in Fulton County testified that she encountered a box of ballots with a batch of 110 that were “pristine” and not folded.  Coffee County refused to certify its election results, citing issues with the Dominion software. The Secretary of State’s office blamed the county for delaying the certification.
Dominion has been in the hot seat over allegations of security gaps in its systems. State Rep. Matt Hall, a Republican who chairs the Michigan House Oversight Committee, recently threatened Dominion’s CEO with a subpoena if he doesn’t appear before his committee voluntarily.  Last week, a state judge ordered a forensic audit of 22 Dominion machines in Michigan’s Antrim County, which was flagged last month by GOP officials as having switched 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden before it was reportedly corrected.
A member of Trump’s legal team said an “independent team” took part in the audit.
Update: The article was updated with information from a Dominion brochure and Gabriel Sterling, voting system implementation manager for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, and Trey Kelly, chairman of Fulton County Republican Party.
Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-supported Texas case over election results in four other states

Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-
supported Texas case over election
results in four other states


Legal experts said Texas’ case, flawed in several ways, was likely to fail

The Supreme Court has denied a Texas effort Friday that would have essentially nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court’s order reads. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
The order does not foreclose any other pending or future election appeals at the Supreme Court, but time is running out. The states meet next week on Dec. 14 for the Electoral College exercise. And on Jan. 6 there will be a joint session of the House and Senate to count the electoral votes and certify President-elect Joe Biden as the winner.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case — without granting other relief, like issuing an injunction on electoral proceedings. They added that they expressed “no view on any other issue.”
Moments after the court’s decision, President Trump tweeted out one of his new campaign videos questioning elections integrity.
A Biden spokesman applauded the decision and called the Texas filing “baseless.”
Texas on Friday morning had filed a “reply brief” with the Supreme Court, asking the tribunal to hear its lawsuit.
The “briefing stage” of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a “reply brief,” which Texas did Friday morning.
“Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief,” the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.
Texas continues: “An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.”
President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administers the Constitutional Oath to Amy Coney Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 26. Barrett, Thomas and their fellow justices now have the ball in their court to issue an order in the Texas case on the presidential election. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administers the Constitutional Oath to Amy Coney Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 26. Barrett, Thomas and their fellow justices now have the ball in their court to issue an order in the Texas case on the presidential election. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)


From our friend…
There were actually 2 movies made under this title…One with Frank Sinatra many, many moons ago and the latest with Denzel Washington. They portray an American who has been “programmed” to be a “Chinese Spy/Assassin”…The movies made for great theater ..both are good…The first was better…That is not to take anything away from Denzel Washington who I think is one of the best actors in the last  25yrs…But these movies  were all fiction..At least we all thought it was fiction!…Assassins come in many robes..they don’t have to use bullets..Well, maybe it wasn’t fiction after all.
.Enter Eric Swalwell..You all know him because for 4 yrs, almost every single day of the week, dear Eric was on TV trying to take down Donald Trump with Russian Collusion…Every day…he was everywhere..and then he actually tried to run for President…No one really took him seriously but he was gunning for a bigger platform…And guess what…we know know that dear Eric was sleeping with a Chinese Spy…AND MUCH WORSE..he allowed that Chinese spy to place one of her “plants” inside his Congressional Office..
Does this sound like a movie?..Like the movie they made twice?..Well…the reality has now been made 3 times…and this one was for real..not on NETFLIX…And the worst part of all, this guy..who is obviously someone who at the very best shows absolutely the worst judgment …this guy actually sat on the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE..
You cannot make this all up…if you told someone this story 30 days ago they would laugh at you…they would say…”you are just making up partisan BS”…BUT IT IS ALL 100 TRUE…And Nancy Pelosi knew who and what dear Eric was…and she actually put this fraud on the INTELL COMMITTEE…She knew what he did..but she wanted an attack dog and his sleeping with the enemy was OK…Or maybe there is really more to this than meets the eye test…Eric is knee deep in horse manure at that moment..( BTW..if this were a Republican, they would gone in 48hrs)
It was never RUSSIAN COLLUSION…but it has become crystal clear there is and was significant CHINESE COLLUSION..and the Democrats ..Nancy..Diane..Eric..Adam..John Brennen..all these people claimed it was Russian and it was always China and  these guys always knew to was China..and the only person on the planet who was willing to take on China was Donald..He took China on with a vengeance …as he should have…So, why, you should ask…are the Democrats so in bed…literally and figuratively, IN BED WITH CHINA?…And why did they fight for RUSSIAN COLLUSION?…After finding  Eric’s “bedmate”…..we all deserve some answers..and they should start with Nancy…She could have put Eric on any one of a DOZEN COMMITTEES…But she put him on THE COMMITTEE that allowed him to be close to the most secret of our country’s top secrets
Think about that lady who worked in his Congressional office and who she really worked for!…ASKING WHY is not an unreasonable request…BTW..all you Democrats…please do not throw the election into this…this has nothing to do with Trump…The Election..Joe..or Hunter (???)…
The question is really…exactly who do people like Nancy, Eric…etc really work for…?..It is beginning appear that it AIN’T the people

Floyd Stern


10 U.S. Code § 253 – Interference with State and Federal law ..


Why doesn’t the President invoke 10 U.S .Code. Chapter 13 Insurrection,
paragraph 253 – interference with  State and Federal Laws. 

He is currently confronted by governors, State Attorney Generals , State and
Federal District Judges who  who are hindering the execution’s  of the laws of their
states, and the federal voting laws 

It is for sure this is a voting conspiracy taking place in these 6 states.

Speech: Donald Trump Addresses the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s C


Mainstream media waited until after Nov. vote to acknowledge Hunter Biden corruption


Trump lawsuit: Thousands of fraudulent votes in Georgia cast by Felons, dead, underage voters

  • 2,560 Felons
  • 66,247 under age registrants
  • 2, 423 people who were not on the state’s voter rolls
  • 4,926 voters who had registered in another state after they registered in Georgia
  • 395 people who cast votes in another state for the same election
  • 15,700 voters who had filed a change of address forms without re-registration
  • 40,279 people who had moved counties without re-registering
  • 1,043 people who claimed the physical impossibility of a P.O box as their address
  • 98 people who registered after the deadline
  • 10,315 people who were deceased on election day
  • 305,701 people who according to the state records applied for absentee ballots past the deadline
  • 92 voters whose absentees’ ballots were cast before they even requested one

Biden won by a margin of 11,979, now take away the  Felons, Underage voters, People not on states voter rolls, People who used illegal P.O box address, People who registered after deadline, Those dead on election day, Voters who ballots were cast before they requested one, that takes away 87,704 votes, leaving a total of 4,910,012, subtract the libertarian vote, leaves you with 4,847,783.

There is no way I can calculate who would have won at this point, but I would bet that most of the illegal voters were for Biden, and out of that 87,704  Biden’s win would be erased,

Now lets look as some research numbers produced b y OANN researcher:


Biden by 33,596

  • 1,500 dead voters
  • 2,500 Changed address
  • 6,000 vacant addresses
  • 8,000 nonexistent Addresses
  • 15,000 commercial addresses ( cannot register with Commercial address)
  • 20,000 out of state voters (yes must consider military, but they do not comprise that number)
  • 42,000 double voted

Total Fraudulent votes 95,000, remove the Commercial, Double voting, non existent addresses, vacant addresses dead voters which total 72, 500, what percentage of the 72,500 were democrat votes for Biden?

Do not have detailed break done of the following but from the same investigator for OANN news.


  • Biden by 81,660
  • Fraudulent vote total 121,000


  • Biden by 20,428
  • Fraudulent vote Total: 200,000


  • Biden by 10,457
  • Fraudulent Vote Total: 300,000


  • Biden by 154,188
  • Fraudulent Vote total: 548,000

Now consider these factors:

Summary of Turnout Correlations

For Republicans, % Turnout positively correlate to % registered Republicans in precincts.
For Democrats and Independents, 5 Turnout Negatively correlates with % registered Democrats and % Registered Independents in precincts.

©2020 Dr. Shin Ayyadural

How Is This “result” Possible?

  • One possibility there’s a demographic within Independent voters, not visible in our model, who voted for Biden.
  • Another possibility is if Biden’s actual votes were multiplied by 1.3 (130%): Meaning each single vote Biden
    actually received became 1.3 reported votes.
  • AND, President Trump’s votes are reduced by the 0.3 or 30% gained by Mr. Biden
  • Simply put, This is Vote Swapping
  • Combination of both possibilities

©2020 Dr. Shiva Ayyadural


(1) Any views or opinions presented in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Highlands Tea Party.  This documentation is sent for informational purposes only, it is your choice to read, forward, or delete.
(2) This website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner in some cases. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. – and to encourage open, free, and informed citizen participation in the political process, of the sort that is the duty of all Americans. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of such copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

(3) In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.




John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :