In a nutshell, this judge ruled that Plaintiff Favorito can sue members of the election board, but he has no right to subpoena the ballots as evidence. So, without the ballots, the case will be difficult to prove. I assume Favorito will now appeal that order if possible, or bring a petition for a writ of mandamus. The trial judge has dragged these proceeding out in a manner inconsistent with the importance of the matter. The judge is complicit in the steal conspiracy, even if after the fact. We call it a democratic republic, but citizens can't see the ballots from the election!?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: Dr. Franklin
What more proof of fraud is needed than this ruling.
Trying to hide evidence is proof of crime.
2 posted on
06/24/2021 6:24:54 PM PDT by
ifinnegan
( Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: Dr. Franklin
“It’s not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes” - Joseph Stalin
5 posted on
06/24/2021 6:30:15 PM PDT by
Jan_Sobieski
(Sanctification)
To: Dr. Franklin
8 posted on
06/24/2021 6:35:05 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,)
To: Dr. Franklin
Get ready for election workers in other swing states claim Sovereign Immunity.
To: Dr. Franklin
“ The judge obviously agreed and essentially ruled that the state cannot be compelled to show independent parties that ballots cast in an election were valid.”
Why the hell not?!
11 posted on
06/24/2021 6:45:38 PM PDT by
Skywise
To: Dr. Franklin
13 posted on
06/24/2021 6:48:34 PM PDT by
McGruff
To: Dr. Franklin
We call it a democratic republic, but citizens can't see the ballots from the election!?That's what a republic is vs. a democracy.
In a democratic republic we trust our elected representatives to manage and audit our elections.
14 posted on
06/24/2021 6:50:01 PM PDT by
semimojo
To: Dr. Franklin
16 posted on
06/24/2021 6:52:37 PM PDT by
Williams
(Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)
To: Dr. Franklin
Apparatchiks protect other Apparatchiks...
The only good communist is a dead communist...
19 posted on
06/24/2021 6:59:45 PM PDT by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another Sam Adams now that we desperately need him?)
To: Dr. Franklin
You are misreading. That is not what the Judge is finding.
The ballot inspection will continue.
At a hearing last month, Amero ordered that the paper ballots themselves be unsealed so that the petitioners who filed the lawsuit can inspect and scan them. He had set a meeting for May 28 with the parties to sort out the logistics of how that review and scanning of paper ballots would proceed. But that meeting was canceled so he could hear the motions to dismiss first.
22 posted on
06/24/2021 7:04:47 PM PDT by
Hostage
(Article V)
To: Dr. Franklin
The lawyers also claimed sovereign immunity to keep the ballots from being subpoenaed for discovery. The judge obviously agreed and essentially ruled that the state cannot be compelled to show independent parties that ballots cast in an election were valid. This makes no sense to me. I'm not saying that the law has to make sense (although it should), but the judge has ruled that the ballots cannot be audited by "independent parties" Is that correct?
Does that mean it can only be "audited" by people with a vested interest in not revealing their errors (intentional, or otherwise)? That is absurd.
An audit only works if it is performed by independent parties. That is basic Quality Control.
Seems like we are in a bizzare-o world, and hopefully this decision will be quickly appealed and overturned.
23 posted on
06/24/2021 7:07:01 PM PDT by
El Cid
(Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
To: Dr. Franklin
How can ballots have sovereign immunity?
24 posted on
06/24/2021 7:07:39 PM PDT by
Fido969
( Sc)
To: Dr. Franklin
What’s to stop the GA state Senate from ordering an audit like the AZ Senate did?
To: Dr. Franklin
27 posted on
06/24/2021 7:09:52 PM PDT by
Revel
To: Dr. Franklin
Is it legal, or should it be legal for a judge to hide the evidence of a crime? Can the judge be prosecuted?
To: Dr. Franklin
in the name of transparency
29 posted on
06/24/2021 7:11:04 PM PDT by
joshua c
(Dump the LEFT. Cable tv, Big tech, national name brands)
To: Dr. Franklin
We call it a democratic republic,Not sure to whom you’re referring as “we,” but I and any self respecting American call it a representative republic
33 posted on
06/24/2021 7:24:12 PM PDT by
Ahithophel
(Communication is an art form susceptible to sudden technical failure)
To: Dr. Franklin
A judge does not have the discipline to put politics aside and rule with wisdom. It is fashionable now days, to rule the way you want to make policy.. if you are a dem, then rule for the dems..
Some justice!!!!
To: Dr. Franklin
Democratic republic? Like North Korea (DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea).
Wrong. A democratic republic is communism.
The USA is Constitutional Republic.
39 posted on
06/24/2021 8:17:59 PM PDT by
Qui is
(Biden spews and Harris swallows.)
To: Dr. Franklin
We call it a democratic republic,Not sure to whom you’re referring as “we,” but I and any self respecting American call it a representative republic
41 posted on
06/24/2021 8:26:26 PM PDT by
Ahithophel
(Communication is an art form susceptible to sudden technical failure)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson