There are people out there fighting for recounts and willing to act if the results show a less than 270 electoral vote count for Biden.
By Dr. R. Sklaroff & L.L.Lechter , INN May 18 , 2021
US Supreme Court
State Legislatures are conducting forensic audits of the 2020 Presidential election, and the result of systemic ballot-stuffing may be invoked to prompt the Supreme Court to supplant or to invalidate Electoral College delegations in at least three states.
This can be accomplished by filing a nunc pro tunc Writ of Certiorari, claiming that proof unavailable “then” [tunc] has subsequently emerged “now” [nunc].
Hand recounts are at various levels of maturity in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan while others are being contemplated in Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania.
If delegations are recalled in any combination of three battleground states, the 270-vote threshold would not be met—invalidating the January 6th tabulation—and the winner would be chosen by each state’s representatives in the House, where Republicans hold the majority (excluding the District of Columbia’s non-voting representative).
The Courts have overturned fraudulent elections when provided overwhelming documentation, and evidence that narrow state-level margins can be overcome by acknowledging erroneous tabulations has been aggregated summarizing exhaustive analyses that include the comprehensive review by Peter Navarro
The media—including Fox News and Newsmax, but not America’s Voice—have not reported the aberrations in Michigan, where modem chips have been embedded in computer motherboards and 66,194 unregistered ballots were tallied in just 9 counties; furthermore, Pennsylvania has been forced to remove 21,000 dead people from the voter rolls, 200 of whom voted in one suburban Philadelphia congressional district (Montgomery County).
Daily developments however are reported by the Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller, and Stephen Bannon; each effort to “find the receipts” continues to be opposed by officials who don’t want to become embarrassed by the results of such probes.
It has been suggested that our expectation that the Supreme Court would act was undermined by two forces, one overt and the other covert; each has been dashed by subsequent events.
Overtly, it has been claimed that the Justices didn’t want to assess information that hadn’t been matured; covertly, it has been claimed that even the conservatives feared Democrats would pack the Court if they didn’t demur.
Now, as flawed voter data emerges and Biden moves toward appointing four more liberal judges, it must have become painfully apparent that the Court has already permitted empowered democrats to undo President Trump’s achievements.
While crying “racism, sexism, xenophobia and Islamophobia,” committed progressives follow the half-century old playbooks of Cloward-Piven and Saul Alinsky, as the former prompts Biden-Harris to create insurmountable debt and the latter to silence opposition; it is hoped “conservative” Supreme Court justices have “read the newspapers” and are preparing to reverse what is now facing Judeo-Christian America, Israel and the globe.
We have written forlornly that conservatives are disgusted by the establishment GOP; instead of forming a third party, Trump has assumed the yeoman task of neutralizing the power of the three “Mc” leaders: McConnell, McCarthy and McDaniel.
The left-right conflict in both America and Israel has been poisoned by creation of a personality conflict tactic that has purposely obscured pivotal issues and the fundamental transformation occurring in the United States portends what would occur in Israel were President Obama’s acolytes to prevail.
The Supreme Court can order the Electoral College to reconvene after it ensures only citizen-votes have been tabulated and corruption has been expunged consistent with state law; while the Supreme Court in 2021 avoided taking action, other courts or Judges have not been shy in overturning elections.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t “stop the steal,” if it is proven, electoral theft will become the norm; radicals will continue to cancel the culture of Western Civilization, empowering those who would sever nascent Israel-Arab bonds and produce an open-border USA.
In the process, an infamous legal adage will be reversed, for attacking those who promote electoral integrity has become a cottage industry among leftists: “If you have neither the case nor the law, you argue ad hominem!”
In America and in Israel, the action-item that can beat back the corruption is awareness of historic implications and the necessity to allow truth and reason to prevail.
Lynne K. Lechter is a business/corporate attorney and litigator. Robert B. Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist.
@ Tanna:
Yes, Tanna, you are correct, it is. I will do so in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.
@ peloni1986:
Peloni,
would you please try to use some paragraph breaks or line breaks to break up your line uponline, uponline, uponline of text that is so hard to read.
thanks
The left will be ruthless!
Amy C Barrett will refuse to take part in anything pertaining to the 2020 elections.
@ peloni1986:
Even the DOJ and FBI refused to investigate the thousands of signed affidavits of Fraud!
What will prevent them (left-rinos) to do a repeat?
If frauds confirmed, it could have resulted in the “non-election” of a number of republican candidates in the house as well as in the senate and at every level down stream in each state etc…!
Now the Epstein guards falsified the books in jail! And the judge has NO intention to find out who instructed them to turn a blind eye on an inside the jail murder!!!
That shows the POWER of the left!
Far worse than the Mafia.
@ Ted Belman:
Yes, Ted, it is what they are there for. But they are also there to render judgements upon difficult cases and to give legal input on how to interpret the law in a given set of situations. They did this this past winter and it worked beautifully. Mooting cases questioning election fraud schemes seems to be the latest pandemic to strike America and I believe that this was in large part due to the legal nod of SCOTUS. You are, of course correct in stating that there never has been such blatant fraud encountered and that they will set the precedent one way or the other, eventually. It is inconceivable that they won’t see these cases at some point, and in doing so, as you suggest, it is also incredulous to believe that they will support the fraud. But the remedy is the question at hand and the remedy they employ will be revealing. It is true as the author states, “the Supreme Court can order the Electoral College to reconvene after it ensures only citizen-votes have been tabulated and corruption has been expunged consistent with state law” and they should do this, but will they? This remedy was available in Jan. before there was any necessity to remove an illegitimate President. Their reluctance to hear these cases in the winter was not, I believe, related to the overt or covert reasons listed by the author as I discussed earlier. I believe that this was a well measured decision to prevent the continuation of Trump as president. If I am correct in this assumption, it would suggest any remedy that they would grant, and it will clearly be their decision to make, would be to continue in the same vane of thought and employ the lack of a precedent to act to prevent Trump from returning to power. Naturally, if I am incorrect in my assumption here, it would follow that a simple ruling of fraud vitiates everything would result and they would likely use the remedy employed in the other non-presidential cases as guidance and either repeat the election or reinterpret the results. So the remedy chosen by SCOTUS will reveal as much about their motivations in their rulings this past winter as it will decide the path forward for the US and the world. I do hope my assumptions here prove to be unfounded, but I am reluctant to honestly say I believe this will be the case.
peloni1986 Said:
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SUCH MASSIVE BLATENT FRAUD EITHER.
Its not unusual for SCOTUS to be in unchartered territory. That’s what they are there for.
While it is true that the courts can reverse the 2020 election, I find it implausible that this is likely. I find the reasoning of the author that the SCOTUS was reluctant to act in Jan due to overt and covert reasoning is naive. Regarding the overt issues, there was significant evidence of fraud known by the relevant parties by late Dec. and early Jan. And SCOTUS refused to even grant a hearing where the evidence or lack thereof would have been presented such that a decision could be made with regards to presence or absence of the “maturity” of evidence.
With regards to the overt consideration of fears of the Dems packing the courts, if this was “covertly” fueling the decisions of the court, they would have taken on the fraud and fairly seen it for what it was, election fraud. They would not have meekly sat quiet, hoping for the insane Gotham caricatures running the Dems to not follow thru on their clearly stated aims to pack the court. By ignoring the fraud cases, they were not acting to prevent the court packing measures, they were insuring it.
It is beyond belief, as far as I can judge, that these conclusions were not well known to everyone, and especially SCOTUS, in the post Nov. election period. Moot, moot, moot, was their judgement and I see nothing that might likely sway them in May, June or July, that did not sway them in Nov., Dec. or Jan. But it would be nice to believe these American rogues dressed in black, un-elected and supposedly unapproachable in their positions, would return to the business of fairly looking at the law and judging these cases for what they were – they are clear violations of black letter law. But even if they did consider these cases and came to a fair conclusion, the quandry remains that judicially, this is uncharted territory. There is precedent at the level of the federal legislature for overturning an election – just last year. But never has there ever been a precedent provided for contesting the presidential election based on fraud. There was the incident in 1876, but Tilden acquiesced in a political bargain without providing any judicial investigation of the claims and counterclaims of the merits of fraud. So, today, we are left, in the absence of any precedent specifically regarding the presidency, to trust these justices to officiate the diligence and dutiful nature of their offices in the spring when they rendered their commitment of these judicial functions as moot this past winter.