Posted on 11/13/2020 5:38:32 PM PST by weston
WBRE: Trump campaign lawsuit to be heard tomorrow in federal court in Williamsport, Pennsylvania
Yes tks
I knew you would understand.
So may it be. Amen
WILKES-BARRE, LUZERNE COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU-TV) — Pennsylvania remains the focus of nationwide attention.
The Trump campaign wants to block the commonwealth from certifying the election results. Results that show president-elect Joe Biden with a 70,000 vote victory. Lawyers for the the Trump campaign are continuing to work on this case right up to tomorrow’s hearing in Williamsport.
Though no clear evidence of widespread voter fraud has been presented, the legal team claims Pennsylvania treated voters and poll watchers differently based on their party affiliation. The Trump campaign argues that Democratic voters in Pennsylvania received more favorable treatment as compared to Republican voters, at polling places, as well as the processing of mail-in and absentee ballots.
The Trump campaign filed an amended lawsuit against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of State and seven counties they say improperly handled the election process, with a focus on the mail-in and absentee ballots.
“We are asking the court not to certify the results of the election, to enjoin. It’s a legal term telling the state they cannot before we have meaningful access to these ballots so we can understand what constitutionally we should do with almost 700,000 ballots,” Trump 2020 Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis said.
Ellis says the amended lawsuit is designed to streamline their case to the court.
“Substanially really nothing is different. We still have Equal Protection due process claims. We still have everything moving forward, so typically through the course of litigation there are amended complaints that are filed with either new or more accurate information or simply allege concerns more focused more clearly for the court,” Ellis said.
Democratic Congressman Matt Cartwright tells Eyewitness News, “I think that American citizens have a legitimate right to go to court to hear their grievances. You know it’s really a price of being an American that we have an impartial mind, not putting on a Democrat or a Republican hat and coming up with a just decision.”
Cartwright adds that evidence of voter fraud has yet to be proven.
“If a lawsuit is brought without evidence, that’s a frivolous lawsuit and should be thrown out. Some have already been around the country. But there is a time and place for everything and people here had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and that’s the time to judge whether something was legitimate or not,” Cartwright said.
A hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday in federal court in Williamsport. Eyewitness News will be there and will have reports throughout the day on air and online on PAHomepage.com.
Eyewitness News reached out to Secretary of State Boockvar’s office.
A spokesperson says in part: “We cannot discuss any specific litigation. Pennsylvania had a free, fair, and secure election and each voter, regardless of political party must have their voice heard. Allegations of fraud and illegal activity have been repeatedly debunked and dismissed by the courts.”
Trump-86,895-Biden-64,827
https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/us-politics/legal-expert-weighs-in-on-trump-campaign-lawsuit/
Williamsport, Pa. – The law firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, will no longer be representing the Trump Campaign on the federal lawsuit filed against the state of Pennsylvania challenging the results of the 2020 election.
The lawsuit, which alleges irregularities of the voting process and the creation of a “two-tiered” system between in-person and mail-in ballots, was just filed three days ago in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Williamsport Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican appointed by President Obama, is slated to rule on the case.
According to the memorandum filed with the firm’s motion to withdraw, Porter Wright and the Plaintiffs “have reached a mutual agreement that Plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws, and current co-counsel and such other counsel as Plaintiffs may choose to engage represent Plaintiffs in this case.”
The memorandum does not provide the reason for the firm’s decision.
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that there were internal tensions among employees at the law firm who felt the case would “undermine the electoral process.”
Porter Wright is based in Columbus, Ohio, and has offices in multiple locations including Pennsylvania. Prior to its withdrawal from the case, it was one of the few major law firms representing the Trump Campaign in its challenges of the election.
Related Reading: Pa. GOP lawmakers to probe unverified fraud claims in election they largely won
The lawsuit, filed against Pennsylvania State Secretary Kathy C. Bookvar and multiple Pennsylvania counties, will now be represented by lawyer Linda Kerns. Kerns, a Philadelphia-based lawyer, has been an outspoken legal advocate for President Trump.
.@tracybeanz I believe this is what you’re looking for....Louie!!!!.
Late this afternoon, I filed an Amended Complaint against GA Secretary of State @GaSecofState, et al. Due process issues are now also raised. The recount is a sham. Tomorrow, I will move for an emergency TRO.@BrianKempGA better come out of his basement.https://t.co/xxLQ0fZQjk— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) November 17, 2020
.
COLUMNS
LAW PUBS
Challenge to Trump’s Lineup of Federal Executions Hits DC Circuit
November 16, 2020MEGAN MINEIROFacebookTwitterEmail
The federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)
WASHINGTON (CN) — President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is continuing down the line of federal death row prisoners it plans to execute, but attorneys put up a new fight against the effort at the D.C. Circuit on Monday.
The government has executed seven federal inmates this year after ending a 17-year hiatus on the death penalty. Even with Trump facing the twilight of his presidency, one prisoner is scheduled to die on Nov. 19 and another two next month, including the only woman on federal death row.
The Trump administration’s tally is more than double the combined number of federal executions of all prior presidencies, totaling just three executions under federal law from 1988 until this year.
Attorneys for the two men next up to die, Brandon Bernard and Orlando Cordia Hall, argued to a three-judge panel on Monday that the government has violated federal law by failing to acquire a medical prescription for the lethal injection the Bureau of Prisons plans to use.
They warned the drug pentobarbital causes what’s called flash pulmonary edema, a condition where fluid accumulates in the lungs and creates the sensation of drowning and asphyxiation.
Attorney General William Barr last year ordered federal executions be carried out using pentobarbital alone, rather than the three-drug cocktail commonly used by states, a new protocol applied in the seven death penalties carried out so far in 2020.
A federal judge had originally found credible evidence that the experience of flash pulmonary edema sets in after a prisoner is injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital, but before losing consciousness, causing extreme pain and terror.
But U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan later reached the opposite conclusion and sided with the Trump administration, after an evidentiary hearing and a ruling from the Supreme Court clearing the way for the executions.
Undeterred, attorneys for the death row prisoners mounted a new challenge in the same lawsuit, alleging the government’s failure to obtain prescriptions for lethal injections violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA.
They had previously argued the new pentobarbital execution protocol was illegal under the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, a much higher standard to prove.
“It would be the tail wagging the dog to allow the FDCA to enter an injunction halting lethal injections where the Eight Amendment couldn’t,” Justice Department attorney Melissa Nicole Patterson said on Monday.
The majority of executions carried out across the country by lethal injection happened without a prescription, the government attorney added, estimating that amounts to more than 1,000 lawful death penalties.
But attorney Alex Drylewski, arguing for the death row prisoners, told the D.C. Circuit that it’s a “virtual medical certainty” that the drug triggers pulmonary edema while a prisoner is still conscious.
“That’s your evidence. They have competing evidence,” U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard said.
But Drylewski pressed his claim that the onset of the severe medical condition exposes prisoners to “unnecessary pain and suffering,” thus meeting the requirement for an injunction under the FDCA.
“I’m just not understanding how the prescription addresses the injury you’re talking about,” Pillard said.
An Obama appointee, the judge explained a ruling in the prisoners’ favor could at worst result in a doctor from the Bureau of Prisons writing a prescription for pentobarbital, without a prescription for a secondary drug to relieve pain.
The Trump administration has argued in the case that the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death.
But Drylewski insisted that requiring the government to first obtain a prescription for the lethal drug would bring into the mix informed clinical judgment “based on the most current science” to guarantee that the drug is used “as intended to mitigate the risks of an inhumane death.”
“Removing those safeguards alone is the irreparable harm here because you’re putting these plaintiffs at risk without any of that clinical oversight,” the attorney said.
But the government sharply criticized the new legal inroad as far off course.
“Congress has very clearly identified who can enforce the FDCA and it is the federal government, or in very narrow exceptions, the state government,” Patterson said.
But Pillard, joined by her fellow Obama appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, sparred at length with the government.
While the Justice Department argued there was no avenue to challenge the federal executions under the FDCA, Millett asked under what statute a non-death row prisoner could bring a case against the government if it tried to administer a routine medication without a prescription.
The government attorney said she could not provide a statute but that doesn’t mean one does not exist.
“I don’t know of every statute in the books,” Millett said. “But I see a lot of them, and I can’t conceive of what that other statute would be to make the government comply with the law.”
In response to the hypothetical, the government buckled down on its argument that no new evidence has surfaced since the appeals court issued an Aug. 27 ruling vacating a stay on the executions.
New autopsy records brought forward by attorneys after executions over the summer do not verify that pulmonary edema set in before the death row inmates passed out, the government argued, and were reviewed by Judge Chuktan and found to not meet the burden for injunctive relief.
Furthermore, the government pointed out, as Judge Pillard did, that a prescription alone would not eliminate the prisoners’ claimed injury without fail.
“This underscores the degree to which they’re trying to use the FDCA to reform execution protocols in a way that is far beyond anything the FDCA contemplates or dictates,” Patterson said.
The government attorney refused to engage substantively with Pillard on a detailed line of questioning on whether the new protocols could constitute gratuitous pain and whether that violates the Eight Amendment, telling the judge: “We are so far from any of the allegations in this case.”
Instead, Patterson cautioned the appeals court against “tinkering with execution protocols” and advised the judges to review Supreme Court precedent in the case.
“There has been an earnest desire to move to ever more humane types of executions. And that is why the Supreme Court has never invalidated a single execution method,” she said.
U.S. District Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, joined the two Obama appointees on Monday’s panel, asking few questions.
The rate of rejected Mail-In Ballots is 30 X’s lower in Pennsylvania this year than it was in 2016. This is why they kept our poll watchers and observers out of the “SACRED” vote counting rooms!https://t.co/QPlzfimbd4— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2020
Trump administration preparing move to decrease Medicare drug prices
The action would reportedly involve Trump’s “most favored-nation” proposal which involves decreasing costs based on prices paid by certain other countries.
By Alex Nitzberg Updated: November 17, 2020 - 12:09am
FTA
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing a proposal to decrease some Medicare drug prices.
The action would involve Trump’s “most favored-nation” proposal, which involves decreasing costs based on prices paid by certain other wealthy countries.
The president issued an executive order in September about this issue.
The Hill cited unnamed sources which said that although plans could change, the Trump administration is getting ready to take action to enact the concept as soon as this week. They said it could be an interim final rule, meaning that it would entail skipping aspects of the regulatory process, thus advancing quicker.
“Trump’s actions would be sure to set off a backlash from drug companies, possibly including lawsuits to try to stop the rule,” according to The Hill.
Tesla’s Supercharger Network In Australia Officially Costs More Than Filling Your Car With Gas
by Tyler Durden Mon, 11/16/2020 - 23:40
FTA
Using the Tesla Supercharger network, it is now costlier to recharge your vehicle than it is to gas up at a traditional gas station, according to a new report from Australia-based WhichCar.
The news came as a result of a “recent price increase” to use the Superchargers and - stop us if you’ve heard this one - “incorrect fuel figures on the Tesla website”.
This, of course, puts an end to Tesla’s years long claims that recharging its vehicles offered savings versus traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
“According to Tesla the cost of charging a Tesla Model 3 is $7 per 100km compared with $12 for a rival petrol car,” WhichCar notes, before revealing the estimate uses “at least three incorrect figures”. The report disputes “how much electricity a Tesla Model 3 uses, the cost of electricity at a Tesla Supercharger and the price of petrol.”
It also notes Tesla’s increase for its Supercharger to 52 cents per kilowatt-hour. The article calculates this recharging “even the most efficient” Model 3 Standard Range would cost $9.78 per 100km using a Supercharger.
It then notes that BMW’s 330i costs $8 per 100km to fuel, assuming the country’s average cost of premium unleaded at $1.38 - a figure sourced from the country’s government. The BMW consumes 5.8 litres per 100km, which is below Tesla’s estimates of 7.0 litres per 100km. This means the BMW is actually 18% cheaper to fuel than a Tesla is to recharge at a Supercharger.
Praying for Divine intervention in this election sham.
Yes.
New York Sheriff Stands Up to Cuomo — Refuses to Enforce His Anti-Thanksgiving Decree
by John HawkinsPosted: November 16, 2020
FTA
With regard to the Thanksgiving Executive Order, the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office will NOT be enforcing it against our County residents. Frankly, I am not sure it could sustain a Constitutional challenge in Court for several reasons including your house is your castle. And as a Sheriff with a law degree I couldn’t in good faith attempt to defend it Court, so I won’t.
https://twitter.com/realbasedmaga/status/1328409069070278659?s=12
.@SidneyPowell1 on @RealRLimbaugh JUST NOW:
Trump votes were programmed to switch to Biden ahead of time, but Trumps votes were so high, it didn’t work right bc they didn’t set their algorithms high enough.
Evidence coming in ppl who bought systems for their state got kickbacks.
If states certify votes, they are certifying their own fraud. She may file class action suits on them later. Warning them now.
Learned today 100 employees frm Dominion are scrubbing Dominion from their accts & resume profiles.
2/3
Amy K, Liz Warren & others who questioned the fairness of Dominion in the past, proof today internet is being scrubbed of those.
Dominion already redacted their authors.
3/3
More sheriffs doing the same
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.
