In PA, Trump V Boockvar, The Trump Campaign and The Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of illegal votes cast throughout the state of Pennsylvania. These parties also claim that the votes of individual voters have been stolen and cast without their knowledge or consent. The Defendants are attempting to get the charges from the Trump Campaign with the Plaintiffs dismissed, citing a lack of credible evidence and the lack of perpetrator(s) to charge with criminal intent. Disputes regarding the ‘notice and cure’ policy for mail-in votes are also being contested on the grounds that some counties in Pennsylvania made attempts to have them fixed while others did not. The Supreme Court stated that individual counties are not required to implement a ‘notice and cure’ policy and has yet to reach a decision whether it should be forbidden or mandatory for all counties to adopt a ‘notice and cure’ policy.
Efforts to dismiss the case in Pennsylvania failed because the Defendants have acted in bad faith and prejudice. The lack of guidance from the Pennsylvania State Court potentially created an equal-protection violation and is currently under investigation to ensure rudimentary requirements of voters’ rights and protections are satisfied.
In MI, Trump v Benson, numerous and various allegations of fraudulent activities and unlawful behaviors during the vote-counting process have been alleged against the democratic party. A few include: Blocking or denying poll-watchers access to the vote-counting area, Ballots being processed multiple times or not counted at all, strict adherence to the six-foot rule for Republican challengers but not for Democratic challengers, as well as multiple accounts of threats, insults, intimidation, and physical assault to Republican officials and volunteers by the Democratic party members. Illegal ballots, ballot stuffing, ballot tampering, ballot destruction, and voting machine irregularities have also been alleged in multiple counties throughout the state. More than one hundred sworn affidavits have been signed and submitted to the courts for review.
The sheer volume of evidence coming out to be processed in Michigan is nothing short of staggering and overwhelming to fully appreciate at this time. This document was made on November 10th, 2020 (Double-check this). Every day after the 10th of November has had more evidence of wrongdoings coming to light, many of which have yet to be seen in the courts.
In GA, Wood v Raffensberger claims put forth that the process for handling absentee ballots in Georgia was changed without approval from the Georgia General Assembly. As a result of this, multiple accounts of improper handling of absentee ballots for the general election have been brought forth. These challenges suggest that the fair and free election process has eroded the sacred and basic rights of Georgia voters. Efforts to count the absentee ballots as fast as possible, rather than verify each individual absentee ballot was done so as not to be perceived as “falling behind” during the process. These proceedings are not consistent with Federal or Georgia law and bring into question the arbitrary and disparate treatment of the 2020 election process.
Georgia Officials did not follow Federal and Georgia law during the vote-counting process. Circumventing normal procedures in an illegal manner while trying to use the Covid-19 pandemic as an excuse to explain away the irregularities.
In GA, Pearson V Kemp is a civil action attempting to prove election fraud and multiple violations of Georgia laws through the use of witnesses, expert analysis, and mathematical impossibilities found in the Georgia 2020 General Election. The civil action is attempting to have the results of the 2020 election process de-certified, recordings of the voting process are produced and examined, voting machines be seized and impounded immediately, and a full manual recount. Efforts to permanently prohibit the Governor and Secretary of State from giving certified results to the Electoral College due to the evidence of election tampering. It has been suggested, not alleged, that they were a part of the process involved with the tampering.
This particular case is trying to prove that questionable (potentially illegal on both State and Federal levels) actions were taken by the election and elected officials during the 2020 election process. These questionable actions are what alluded to the potential voter fraud and vote tampering.
Sidney Powell V Dominion is a monster of a case. Sidney Powell is a Military Lawyer, which means she has the power to prosecute treason at a tribunal. The evidence that she has submitted to courts is over a hundred pages long and includes names of those involved in a nationwide attempt to steal the 2020 election. Data suggesting the voting machines were programmed to count votes in an illegal manner (1.25 Biden and .75 Trump), and even that extra ballots were printed illegally and cast as legitimate. It also goes on to say that voters received ballots that they never requested. There is no easy way to attempt to describe the contents of this document, other than to say the evidence outlined within it is so damning that it is suggesting that new laws have to be made because there is no remedy for the current situation that America is facing. If you truly seek to understand the severity of the Sidney Powell V Dominion case, you have to take the time to read it fully.
The evidence that Sidney Powell is bringing forth to the courts is suggesting that the 2020 voter fraud allegations aren’t just a state or national issue, it’s an international one. And the implications of that include sedition and treason.
Dr. Corsi alleges a violation of his 14th amendment rights. He states that “Trump voters in Florida [and other states that adhered to their own electoral safeguards to minimize fraud] had their … voting rights compromised by Biden voters in Oregon [and other states that failed to adhere to their own electoral safeguards, which resulted in fraudulent voting].” Essentially, he alleges that fraudulent votes in blue states cancelled-out legitimate votes in red states, including his own legitimate vote. Dr. Corsi filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), rather than filing in a lower court. He did so in the belief that “The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in conflict of law cases between the states” and “The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when 14th Amendment cases arise from the conflict of law involving not one state but many different states.” However, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in this case, per Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”) as interpreted by Marbury v. Madison (1803). Essentially, the U.S. Constitution enumerates situations in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, the corresponding negative implication being that SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction in any situation not listed. Whether a court has jurisdiction over Dr. Corsi’s case is a threshold question, and because it does not, the case will be dismissed.