Check the very bottom of the GA SOS page, copyright SCTYL 2020
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/
Any connections you find, please post on Laz’s mega research thread. All sorts of evidence being put together there to submit to Trump’s team, lawyers, etc:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3903425/posts
Thanks for that. Very helpful. Have added a note to Laz’s page with a link back here.
Perhaps in the morning, getting kind of tired right now as I have been up since 3 A.M. (That’s almost 20 hours ago here in Central time) Getting punch happy. 8>)
Post 8
You are right it does cite “scytl.us”
2020 Copyright: scytl.us
Mighty curious situation. What does that contract look like?
The heart of the matter... in a post I wrote on another thread:
What the law provides doesn’t matter ?
That’s seen as “true” in at least two ways, three, really, with two of the three being true in fact.
First, if the what the law provides is wrongly understood ? That’s the game Democrats often play... deliberately misunderstanding the law, while testing its limits to see what Republicans will let them get away with. Turns out that usually means they’re allowed to get away with anything they want badly enough to try cheating at. Until Trump.
But, where that runs into difficulty is when, for instance, the electors are wrongly chosen... in violation of the law... and then declared rightly chosen... and advanced as legitimate. In the current instance, the entire election was held outside the law. The court would be right to find that no election was held in PA... because the mimic in the process that was conducted... doesn’t meet the requirements the law imposes to be considered an election under the law.
If there was no election... how can there be electors ? If there were no electors... they can’t vote as electors ?
The “deadline” has nothing to with it then ? Then they don’t squirt past the deadline and say “whew, snuck that one past ‘em” and get away with it ? Because, if they were fraudulently chosen... before the deadline... then they NEVER WERE electors ? And, the act of advancing them knowingly, in spite of the fraud... is perjury, at least ?
But, committing the perjury... doesn’t make a non-election into an election... or non-electors into electors ?
From there... you can “what if” what happens depending on what the SCOTUS finds when it looks at the issues ?
Even if you don’t start with the expectation that precedent is not limiting... that leaves a wide field.
Even if it were true (an error) that there was no precedent to consider re the inviolability of the curtain drawn by a “safe harbor” provision in a law... that appears it doesn’t actually apply in the case of a non-action taken, more when the non-action asserts the fact of the error being addressed and left unresolved ? That’s a wrinkle that is still not properly employed if used in an attempt to dodge the parallel error in the incorrect claim re the lack of relevant precedent... when fraud seeks to avoid the operation of the law by subverting the legitimate process.
A relevant question then, might be... are there any other circumstances, conditions precedent, that might exist that would alter the function of the clock in legal proceedings ?
Then, of course, when facing an unprecedented situation... it is error to assume precedent is obviously controlling.
Beyond deliberate violations of law, deliberate sleights of hand in misdirection relative to what the law is, errors in interpretation of the law by various others, and error entrained in law that is inherently unconstitutional...
The Constitution, also, of course, provides for a method of determining a case when what the law provides... is wrong.
Then, there are other elements to consider, such as motive ?
Willingness of some to break the law is undisputed.
Errors of public officials... undertaken because of a gross misunderstanding of their legitimate role and the nature of their obligations in constitutional context ?
The biggest issue is that of the illusion that controls this country... crafted around the divide between the importance of the appearance of legitimacy in elections... and the much greater importance of safe0guarding the fact of it.
The election frauds are enabled, by both parties, under the false rubric of it being critically necessary to tolerate the fraud, because exposing it would lead to a loss of confidence in elections. And, confidence (the heart of every con game) is considered more important to sustain than the fact of legitimacy.
The only way to restore legitimacy... is to restore it in fact... while DESTROYING the argument that fraud must be tolerated to sustain the ILLUSION of legitimacy.
In the current case... the THREE arguments are... 1.) the law is being violated, 2.) the law being applied isn’t “the law” as sleights of hand operate misdirection to apply “law” that isn’t the law, and 3.) some elements of laws properly enabled... violate the Constitution.
Actually solving the problem requires adding to that, now, a fourth item... that 4.) a systemic fraud is practiced in wrongly yet broadly advocating to sustain extant frauds, even covering them up as a necessary element, which operates by fostering the belief that the illusion of legitimacy where it is in fact lacking... is more important to sustain than the fact.
The court must EXPOSE that argument... and obliterate it.
Sneaking past the “safe harbor” deadline... cannot be made to work in validating “something someone made up” as having the same force of law as real law... only because it was more convenient for some actors to ignore that their actions weren’t legitimate ? This case potentially becomes a VERY FUNDAMENTAL showdown between those different views of the law: The liberal view that says the law (just as the Constitution) is “malleable” enough to allow it being interpreted however you want, as long as a pretense of legitimacy is sustained... and the conservative view that says the law... actually means something... and the requirement is substantive, not theater enabling a con game.
Courts are generally reluctant to engage in deciding political matters... for good reason. When the DOJ, perhaps at the heart of theater engaged in enforcing the “illusion” of legitimacy, says “its a civil matter”... does that make it so ? When does the criminality become so excessive that it can’t possibly be seen as “a political matter” rather than flagrant crime, the tolerance of which is an existential threat ?
When does an interest in having elections be viewed as legitimate... conflict with an actual requirement under law and the Constitution to tell the truth... do the right thing... and ensure elections ACTUALLY HAVE integrity... instead of only appearing legitimate in result of a wide spread conspiracy of silence masking the truth ?
Perhaps we’ll find out in 2020 ?
While the Constitution is not a suicide pact... neither is the law properly purposed as the necessary legal enabling element when wrongful legislation is making it a suicide pact... only to sustain the illusion that it really matters.
If the SCOTUS fails to address the “minor” issue of the appearance versus the reality of legitimacy... and fails to obliterate the argument that appearances matter more than the substance... they will have missed the heart of the matter entirely.