Replies

Specifically:

“Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the
election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election
officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual
allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on
SPECULATION rather than DULY PLED FACTS. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.” (emphasis added)

Response to footnote 36 of “The Immaculate Deception”. You can read it here: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020.12.8-Final-Order-Granting-MTDs-2020CV343018-Boland-v.-Raffensperger-et-al.-KH623927x9D7F4.pdf

(note, the same site, Democracy Docket, is the same one that Mr. Navarro uses in this footnotes 36 and 49, so yes, it’s a leftist website, but Peter Navarro didn’t have any problem citing it in his footnotes. Ask yourself “why” if you now doubt the veracity of Democracy Docket)

It’s a matter of law. The RULE of LAW. Do “we” (those on FR) support the “rule of law” or not?

Just posting this as, again, a foretaste. A sampling of what I’ve personally found. From what I’ve found, there are two categories:

1. That direct evidence (affidavits, statistical analyses etc) was found to be lacking (because the affidafits are “hearsay” or “expert testimony” based on “experts” that lack proper credentials). Or …
2. That a case, or case(s) was/were thrown out because of “lack of standing” or “laches” HOWEVER, one must realize that when that did occur, that is the ORIGINAL reason such a case was brought in the first place, ie, not based on “evidence” but on an argument of the law (so what’s the court supposed to do, consider evidence NOT brought?)

Again, I’m still examining this myself, still considering if it’s worth posting to FR as a separate thread. But from what I continue to find, I’m not finding much to believe the “election was stolen”, at least not enough to reasonably believe the results should have been overturned.