Posted on 11/27/2020 9:26:11 PM PST by bitt
This is HUGE!
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
McCullough added this, “Additionally, petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”
Here is a copy of Friday night’s ruling.
https://www.scribd.com/document/486132522/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed-in-Pennsylvania-by-Judge-McCullough-Election-Likely-Unconstitutional#from_embed
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Yes, she’s hip to their game. Would love to know the back story of that press release they produced as evidence of certification on 11/24. I believe it was manufactured for the sole purpose of circumventing this judge.
Can someone please explain this?🤯🧐
Preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and are only granted when there is a "likelihood to succeed".
I believe "likelihood to succeed" means exactly what it sounds like.
Ultimately the hacks on the PASC will smack this down, so this is definitely going to get to the SCOTUS.
Of course that was its purpose. They tried an end-run and the judge knows it.
Reeks then of desperation and perhaps gives insight into the hand wringing taking place in that camp.
See lawyer/election analyst/super-bettor Robert Barnes twitter:
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1332530731231236097
“Pennsylvania trial court rules the 2020 election was likely unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, and that gives state legislators power to choose electors.”
“
3requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of themembers of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in twoconsecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be publishedfor three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in eachcounty, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot questionin the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on theamendment. “
...
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provisionis at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.
I’m beginning to think the T-Team doesn’t want to expose their best and most damning evidence to any of the partisan state courts. I think they want new public evidence to show up at the SCOTUS level to keep witnesses safe and prevent attempts to destroy evidence.
We’ll need another state besides Pennsylvania.
Tracey Beantz thread:
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1332534528959721472
Tracey says:
“Thread: This is a huge deal. The PA court is saying Parnell has a viable complaint that mail in voting in PA was unconstitutional and that the Gov there rushed to certify the POTUS and VP to skirt around it. This is massive - a huge win for justice.”
???
Asking for a friend
Awesome.
This the way we have to fight.
Correct. Trump’s team needs people working out timelines for the other state efforts as Dec. 8 is fast approaching.
Wrong.
Likely to succeed on the merits is indeed a preliminary determination that you are likely to succeed. That’s one of the requirements for a court to issue an injunction, and has nothing to do with dismissing the case or not.
If you aren’t likely to succeed the court won’t take the extraordinary step of issuing orders before the case is completed.
The problem is even if we win before this judge, this will eventually go to the PA Supreme Court, dominated by liberals who created many of the improper procedures.
So then the question will be to what degree the US Supreme Court will review the decision of the PA Supreme Court on a question of interpreting the PA Constitution.
So in this case, they didn’t win on fraud. They won because the PA constitution describes the conditions in which mail in voting is allowed. They can’t modify that by legislation unless they modify their constitution, which they didn’t do.
So it sounds like PA might be a win. At least it’s going to the legislature and a key committee has already heard the voter fraud claims.
I’m not sure if this win can be emulated in other states, because it depend on how those states constitution is written and whether their constitutions described limits on mail-in voting.
signing Act 77 of October 31, 2019, The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election.
Just in time for COVID-1984? Coincidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.