The laws of every state are uniform on this point – for every election large and small. You have the legal right to mount an “election contest,” and to demand an independent audit. Original election materials must be securely retained for at least two years, specifically in support of this privilege. Whether it’s a national election for the President, or a seat on your small-town town council.
(Unless you’re the State Senate, you’re obliged to post a bond to cover the state’s actual costs – to be forfeit if you lose your case. But, this is a very reasonable requirement.)
Also – “election fraud “is at least a Class-5 Felony. It carries a harsh prison sentence … more so if you’re a corrupt Secretary of State. No wonder they’re running scared now. They should be.
The judge pressed DePerno on the statute authorizing citizen challenges noting Grill’s argument that a literal interpretation of the statute posed the prospect of election challenge lawsuit chaos. The simple response to that is that a) the statute requires posting of a bond, and b) civil procedure permits consolidation of like suits and class actions.
Grill’s argument essentially is, if fraudsters can concoct a fraud so vast that it affects thousands of voters, then there’s no procedure available to those thousands of voters to challenge the state’s audit. Grill’s argument just incentivizes bigger frauds. I thought DePerno had a great shot to take down Grill’s argument, but whiffed.
A lot of people are working very hard and are near success. You are dragging at their elbows like a whiny five year old. You are shouting to the Army that it is a stupid hopeless battle led by fools and soon to fail You traitor. You troll. May God silence you.
It sounds like the MI 2018 amendment allowing citizens to audit state-wide elections is going to be a huge hurdle for the Secretary of State, Judge, etc. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how the defendant circles this square without an audit.
Yes, this should take the “standing” dodge option away from the court. This was very convenient to the courts up to this point. If they take that option again, which they can and might, they do it at their own peril and in full defiance of the electorate.
dow40kby2024
May 10, 2021 3:48 pm
Love to hear the update on this one when it is available. The way I see it these audits in these states/counties are some of the biggest issues of the year so far and into the future. Need this accountability.
Beyond arguments today, it’s continued until next Tues where the judge is scheduled to rule on the motions to dismiss or continue review of the amended motion.
IF YOU BOTHER TO TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THE SIMULATED ELECTION PERFORMED BY DEPERNO, YOU WILL SEE HOW ELECTIONS CAN BE JURIED-OR RIGGED
LetJusticePrevail2014
May 10, 2021 4:10 pm
The lawyer speaking in favor of the audit made a very fine argument, but his opponent countered with “he has proved nothing, since all of his evidence is disputed”
This is far from over, but that judge seemed hostile to our cause when he implied that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would result in “chaos” because it would mean EVERYONE can contest any election that didn’t produce their desired result.
Look what they were able to do after the 2016 election! Used our tax dollars to determine if Russian interference! Investigate Trump for almost 2 years.
While I think the election was stolen and there need to be audits everywhere, I can see the Judge’s concern.
The Amendment as it was written doesn’t deal with the issues of costs, standing, etc. Those issues are going to have to be dealt with – which means this is going to have to move up to the higher courts at some point. I think the plaintiff has already proven standing so the issue of cost will be next. Judge could address costs by making plaintiff pay them.
Either way 1) an audit is clearly required in the amendment, 2) there are guidelines on what is required in an audit, 3) the lawyer for Sec State admits that an audit was not done, so an audit as prescribed by the guidelines is going to have to come out of this.
With regard “evidence in dispute” that comment was for you/me/viewer/ and the media. All court cases are about evidence in dispute. It’s important because it suggests that the number of people watching the call was a surprise to him.
Viewership numbers are a problem. I suspect the Judge moved this case as far as it has come because it was under the radar.
My take, Sec of State attorneys are trying to drag this out – did you take note of hearing in October. They’re going for the financial drain. Plaintiff needs to find some deep pockets like AZ found to move this forward.
Agreed on all points. For the opposition to NOT “dispute” the evidence would mean they actually ADMIT every allegation of election fraud, which they will NEVER do.
Ummm, If the ruling goes againist you, I thought the looser picks up the tab for costs and penalty (audit)- that would be Antrim County no? (not Mr Baily)?
The Judge is clown…that is why hearings like this are actually conducted to determine if the evidence justifies the audit or not before conducting the audit. The very hearing he is conducting is the remedy before conducting the audit. The defence has presented nothing to counter the evidence except a statement that they do not agree.
Evidence is always “contested”… the validity of the objections has to be countered by facts and not just a statement “we do ot agree”.
The defense’s argument is BS unless the defense show counter evidence.
And that is why, idiot judge, that YOU must be the arbiter of whether there seems to be weight to the evidence.
If all the judicial system ever does is say no citizen has standing when that citizen went to a lawyer and that lawyer offered a reason to believe an election was crooked, we don’t NEED DAMN COURTS FOR ANYTHING.
Let’s just all go back to the law of the West: everyone with a gun and a gun he will use when he knows he’s been cheated and there’s no justice.
I’ve read from several lawyers with blogs that “standing” is a recent legal phenomenon and that it’s not clearly defined ANYWHERE, but it’s often used to do nothing.
So because the introduction of evidence of (voter) fraud would result in “chaos,” there should be no remedy for fraud.
This is insane! This is tantamount to “too big too fail” legal argument. Again, insane! A 100 per cent outcome-driven legal system.
It is impossible to have a country under the rule of law when the courts shy away from their obligation to uphold the said rule of law and, instead, place political expediency above the letter and spirit of the law.
Last edited 2 years ago by Al Walker
Daniel
May 10, 2021 4:58 pm
It’s so funny that the lawyer for the dark side says “the audit was conducted by the people whose running of the election is in question and that’s all they are entitled to under the law.” In what world are people suspected of wrong doing allowed to audit themselves? I’ll have to remember that the next time I face the IRS. “Sir, I audited myself so your audit is not necessary in the least.” Does anyone think that would fly? Does anyone think that SHOULD fly?
Paprika
May 10, 2021 5:32 pm
One of the most interesting comments ( and supposedly something that carries weight with these judges) was when the judge said(paraphrasing); “So you’re saying that any citizen has the right to contest the election results, which could mean hundreds if not thousands of law suits and might be an undue burden of time and expense on the State”?
Well ‘Gee Whiz’, judge, that’s exactly what I’m saying because the Constitution supposedly limits the government and supposedly protects the rights of the individual citizen! If a individual citizen can not petition the government for a grievance, then the Constitution and your ‘court’ are null and void- that’s the damn purpose of the US Constitution! Consideration of the ‘undue’ expense to the state has no ‘standing’ against the rights of a single citizen.
How is this question of expense and hardship to government agencies even a considered thought or argument? The ‘undue’ expense and hardship of the individual citizen is certainly overlooked somehow–Why is that? I guess that is now considered ‘moot’.
Heifer Poop!
And this other whole gambit about a citizen not being able to bring this to court for just his/her vote in one county, but has to be for the whole state wide election process/result is utterly ridiculous! — “Gee, your honor, I only exceeded the speed limit in one county, not the whole state” would not go over well, would it?
Anywho, it will be interesting to see how this judge rules in this case and what justifications he uses for each motion.
You don’t get it, we have an outcome-driven legal system in this country. What it means is that the judges do not only adjudicate cases and interpret the law but rather decide what is now law and weather it would be politically expedient to enforce or apply it given the particular outcome. If they don’t like the outcome based on personal politics, or simply are afraid of the backlash against an unpopular ruling, the court will simply refuse the evidence citing “no standing” because it’s still “too early” or “too late.”
And wile we often focus on the SCOTUS, we should remember those lower courts, which caved in to the hysterical demands of the D.C. ruling class.
ReglarMerican
May 10, 2021 6:20 pm
Maybe some states should stop certifying elections and just call the results “election product” if we’re not quite sure what’s in them 🤔 https://t.co/G1fAbQxUER
Several of the lawyers falsely stated to the judge that relief had already been granted. Then Matthew DiPerno came on and called them out by saying that no audit had ever been performed. At that point in time, I noticed that most of the liar/lawyers then fidgeted and looked very uncomfortable.
Big Al
May 10, 2021 6:57 pm
If anyone is worthy of help right now it is Matt DePerno. A remake of David v Goliath
The interview Tracy Beanz did with Matt DePerno Friday is very, very good. I need to go back and listen to it again. I’d recommend it if only to learn more about the nuts and bolts of the steal in MI. Do I suddenly have hope that the dominoes will begin to fall? Not really – but there’s a glimmer of hope. We cannot ignore what they did/are doing. Glad that, finally, an attorney is fighting for the truth! The corruption in Michigan isn’t only at the state level, but also very much on the local level. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-dark-to-light-with-frank-b-31139165/episode/dark-to-light-matt-deperno-82302092/
Al Tallant
May 16, 2021 3:09 pm
Dominion Voting Systems released a very revealing statement on Thursday. The Denver-based company responded to the Arizona Senate’s demand for passwords to ballot tabulators.
Back on November 30, 2020, Maricopa County elections witness Jan Bryant testified before the Arizona legislature. Jan said back on November 30, 2020, that Maricopa County officials DID NOT RUN THE ELECTION! Two Dominion employees in the audit center ran the election. This explains why Maricopa County officials do not have Admin passwords or access to the Dominion voting machines. They never had them!
America’s Audit Director Ken Bennett told OAN earlier in the week that Dominion was refusing to comply with the subpoena to turn over the passwords.
What are they hiding? CHEK OUT TXCC OR FRANKSPEECH.COM OR LINDELTV FOR PROOF OF ELECTION FRAUD
The laws of every state are uniform on this point – for every election large and small. You have the legal right to mount an “election contest,” and to demand an independent audit. Original election materials must be securely retained for at least two years, specifically in support of this privilege. Whether it’s a national election for the President, or a seat on your small-town town council.
(Unless you’re the State Senate, you’re obliged to post a bond to cover the state’s actual costs – to be forfeit if you lose your case. But, this is a very reasonable requirement.)
Also – “election fraud “is at least a Class-5 Felony. It carries a harsh prison sentence … more so if you’re a corrupt Secretary of State. No wonder they’re running scared now. They should be.
The lawyer implied that an ordinary person did not have the right to question their recount/audit. We’ll see what the judge rules I guess.
The judge pressed DePerno on the statute authorizing citizen challenges noting Grill’s argument that a literal interpretation of the statute posed the prospect of election challenge lawsuit chaos. The simple response to that is that a) the statute requires posting of a bond, and b) civil procedure permits consolidation of like suits and class actions.
Grill’s argument essentially is, if fraudsters can concoct a fraud so vast that it affects thousands of voters, then there’s no procedure available to those thousands of voters to challenge the state’s audit. Grill’s argument just incentivizes bigger frauds. I thought DePerno had a great shot to take down Grill’s argument, but whiffed.
So AZ ‘losing’ the election DB is fraud.
Nothing was done though SD laid it out in detail with FISA abuses, Comey still walks the woods and McCord runs interference.
nothing will come come of state audits.
our voice nulled
our work confiscated
our worship violated
they’ll steal every election from Nov 3 2020 to eternity.
It doesn’t need to be that way, there is another option. 2A baby……
I’ve said it before,we are already at the point of civil war, we just don’t know who to shoot at ?!
Oh, I don’t know about that, I think we know, but we’re not quite ready for that yet!
DC
Who’s going to start? Seems like no one is willing so far.
Getting so warm, so fast, it’s gonna go hot. ???
Semper Fi!
A lot of people are working very hard and are near success. You are dragging at their elbows like a whiny five year old. You are shouting to the Army that it is a stupid hopeless battle led by fools and soon to fail You traitor. You troll. May God silence you.
What have you done FD?
Only if we let them!
Do Democrats and RINOs vontrol every election board?
It must suck to be you.
who is this judge? another globalist?
It sounds like the MI 2018 amendment allowing citizens to audit state-wide elections is going to be a huge hurdle for the Secretary of State, Judge, etc. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how the defendant circles this square without an audit.
Agreed. Very clear that every citizen that voted in MI has a right to ask for an audit of the results.
Yes, this should take the “standing” dodge option away from the court. This was very convenient to the courts up to this point. If they take that option again, which they can and might, they do it at their own peril and in full defiance of the electorate.
Love to hear the update on this one when it is available. The way I see it these audits in these states/counties are some of the biggest issues of the year so far and into the future. Need this accountability.
Beyond arguments today, it’s continued until next Tues where the judge is scheduled to rule on the motions to dismiss or continue review of the amended motion.
I believe the judge said he would read his ruling next week. Presumably on the 18th
IF YOU BOTHER TO TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THE SIMULATED ELECTION PERFORMED BY DEPERNO, YOU WILL SEE HOW ELECTIONS CAN BE JURIED-OR RIGGED
The lawyer speaking in favor of the audit made a very fine argument, but his opponent countered with “he has proved nothing, since all of his evidence is disputed”
This is far from over, but that judge seemed hostile to our cause when he implied that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would result in “chaos” because it would mean EVERYONE can contest any election that didn’t produce their desired result.
Isn’t THAT exactly what the Dems ALREADY do?
Look what they were able to do after the 2016 election! Used our tax dollars to determine if Russian interference! Investigate Trump for almost 2 years.
While I think the election was stolen and there need to be audits everywhere, I can see the Judge’s concern.
The Amendment as it was written doesn’t deal with the issues of costs, standing, etc. Those issues are going to have to be dealt with – which means this is going to have to move up to the higher courts at some point. I think the plaintiff has already proven standing so the issue of cost will be next. Judge could address costs by making plaintiff pay them.
Either way 1) an audit is clearly required in the amendment, 2) there are guidelines on what is required in an audit, 3) the lawyer for Sec State admits that an audit was not done, so an audit as prescribed by the guidelines is going to have to come out of this.
With regard “evidence in dispute” that comment was for you/me/viewer/ and the media. All court cases are about evidence in dispute. It’s important because it suggests that the number of people watching the call was a surprise to him.
Viewership numbers are a problem. I suspect the Judge moved this case as far as it has come because it was under the radar.
My take, Sec of State attorneys are trying to drag this out – did you take note of hearing in October. They’re going for the financial drain. Plaintiff needs to find some deep pockets like AZ found to move this forward.
The amendment as written is fine. The very fact this hearing is being conducted is the remedy to the concerns you list.
Agreed on all points. For the opposition to NOT “dispute” the evidence would mean they actually ADMIT every allegation of election fraud, which they will NEVER do.
Dem strategy has ALWAYS been:
LIE LIE LIE
DENY DENY DENY
Ummm, If the ruling goes againist you, I thought the looser picks up the tab for costs and penalty (audit)- that would be Antrim County no? (not Mr Baily)?
The Judge is clown…that is why hearings like this are actually conducted to determine if the evidence justifies the audit or not before conducting the audit. The very hearing he is conducting is the remedy before conducting the audit. The defence has presented nothing to counter the evidence except a statement that they do not agree.
Evidence is always “contested”… the validity of the objections has to be countered by facts and not just a statement “we do ot agree”.
The defense’s argument is BS unless the defense show counter evidence.
Agreed. But, the plaintiff’s attorney claims that his assertions are “proved” when no ruling has been made about their validity.
SO the defendant’s counsel WAS CORRECT to point out that LEGALLY they’re not “Proved”
He has presented EVIDENCE that has NOT been countered. Until the evidence is countered his statements ARE proven.
And that is why, idiot judge, that YOU must be the arbiter of whether there seems to be weight to the evidence.
If all the judicial system ever does is say no citizen has standing when that citizen went to a lawyer and that lawyer offered a reason to believe an election was crooked, we don’t NEED DAMN COURTS FOR ANYTHING.
Let’s just all go back to the law of the West: everyone with a gun and a gun he will use when he knows he’s been cheated and there’s no justice.
I’ve read from several lawyers with blogs that “standing” is a recent legal phenomenon and that it’s not clearly defined ANYWHERE, but it’s often used to do nothing.
Anybody can say, “I dispute that,” but which argument seemed reasonable?
So because the introduction of evidence of (voter) fraud would result in “chaos,” there should be no remedy for fraud.
This is insane! This is tantamount to “too big too fail” legal argument. Again, insane! A 100 per cent outcome-driven legal system.
It is impossible to have a country under the rule of law when the courts shy away from their obligation to uphold the said rule of law and, instead, place political expediency above the letter and spirit of the law.
It’s so funny that the lawyer for the dark side says “the audit was conducted by the people whose running of the election is in question and that’s all they are entitled to under the law.” In what world are people suspected of wrong doing allowed to audit themselves? I’ll have to remember that the next time I face the IRS. “Sir, I audited myself so your audit is not necessary in the least.” Does anyone think that would fly? Does anyone think that SHOULD fly?
One of the most interesting comments ( and supposedly something that carries weight with these judges) was when the judge said(paraphrasing); “So you’re saying that any citizen has the right to contest the election results, which could mean hundreds if not thousands of law suits and might be an undue burden of time and expense on the State”?
Well ‘Gee Whiz’, judge, that’s exactly what I’m saying because the Constitution supposedly limits the government and supposedly protects the rights of the individual citizen! If a individual citizen can not petition the government for a grievance, then the Constitution and your ‘court’ are null and void- that’s the damn purpose of the US Constitution! Consideration of the ‘undue’ expense to the state has no ‘standing’ against the rights of a single citizen.
How is this question of expense and hardship to government agencies even a considered thought or argument? The ‘undue’ expense and hardship of the individual citizen is certainly overlooked somehow–Why is that? I guess that is now considered ‘moot’.
Heifer Poop!
And this other whole gambit about a citizen not being able to bring this to court for just his/her vote in one county, but has to be for the whole state wide election process/result is utterly ridiculous! — “Gee, your honor, I only exceeded the speed limit in one county, not the whole state” would not go over well, would it?
Anywho, it will be interesting to see how this judge rules in this case and what justifications he uses for each motion.
You don’t get it, we have an outcome-driven legal system in this country. What it means is that the judges do not only adjudicate cases and interpret the law but rather decide what is now law and weather it would be politically expedient to enforce or apply it given the particular outcome. If they don’t like the outcome based on personal politics, or simply are afraid of the backlash against an unpopular ruling, the court will simply refuse the evidence citing “no standing” because it’s still “too early” or “too late.”
And wile we often focus on the SCOTUS, we should remember those lower courts, which caved in to the hysterical demands of the D.C. ruling class.
Several of the lawyers falsely stated to the judge that relief had already been granted. Then Matthew DiPerno came on and called them out by saying that no audit had ever been performed. At that point in time, I noticed that most of the liar/lawyers then fidgeted and looked very uncomfortable.
If anyone is worthy of help right now it is Matt DePerno. A remake of David v Goliath
https://home.frankspeech.com/video/hear-first-attorney-have-court-order-audit-dominion-machines-nation
The interview Tracy Beanz did with Matt DePerno Friday is very, very good. I need to go back and listen to it again. I’d recommend it if only to learn more about the nuts and bolts of the steal in MI. Do I suddenly have hope that the dominoes will begin to fall? Not really – but there’s a glimmer of hope. We cannot ignore what they did/are doing. Glad that, finally, an attorney is fighting for the truth! The corruption in Michigan isn’t only at the state level, but also very much on the local level.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-dark-to-light-with-frank-b-31139165/episode/dark-to-light-matt-deperno-82302092/
Dominion Voting Systems released a very revealing statement on Thursday. The Denver-based company responded to the Arizona Senate’s demand for passwords to ballot tabulators.
Back on November 30, 2020, Maricopa County elections witness Jan Bryant testified before the Arizona legislature. Jan said back on November 30, 2020, that Maricopa County officials DID NOT RUN THE ELECTION! Two Dominion employees in the audit center ran the election. This explains why Maricopa County officials do not have Admin passwords or access to the Dominion voting machines. They never had them!
America’s Audit Director Ken Bennett told OAN earlier in the week that Dominion was refusing to comply with the subpoena to turn over the passwords.
What are they hiding? CHEK OUT TXCC OR FRANKSPEECH.COM OR LINDELTV FOR PROOF OF ELECTION FRAUD