Lin Wood Files Emergency Motion for Writ of Mandamus filed with SCOTUS tonight

Lin Wood ^

[TigerClaws]

Document at the link. He's the plaintiff and Georgia election officials and governor the defendants.

[Ponce de Leon County]

Which state legislature has made a move to decertify?

[A Navy Vet]

Suck wood - Wood. You haven’t done shit.

[DoodleDawg]

If Biden loses 37 EC votes due to them being de-certified or whatever and not being appointed for the EC vote, he still wins, 269-232. States that don't send appointed electors don't count for the votes, but they also don't count for the total. So your number of majority will drop as well.

An interesting theory and I admit in many ways it makes sense, but since none of the electors are going to be decertified then we'll never find out if you're right or not.

[Svartalfiar]

I disagree. The total number of Electors in the EC is 538.

I see ‘appointed’ and ‘certified’ as having different meanings.

Appointed Electors to the Electoral College without certification may not have their votes counted by the Senate President.

The max number of electors in the EC is 538. But if some of those seats aren't filled, then the total number goes down. Appointed and Certified do have different meanings, but it also depends on where you're coming from. Do Electors count as "appointed" if the State does them, but their votes don't reach Congress? From Congress's viewpoint, that State never appointed any!

But to the third part there - the issue is that, I'm pretty sure, all these Govs have already certified their States' results - meaning they're about locked in. From 3 U.S. Code § 15: "and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified." Boiled down, it means that as long as the State properly fixed any issues and the Gov issued the certification, Congress isn't allowed to reject those votes. UNLESS, both Houses can agree that the Govs failed to properly certify, but we all know that the House will NEVER vote against a Dem. It doesn't matter to Pelosi and her party if they're wrong or illegal, Dems ALWAYS stick together. The remedy for these issues CANNOT be fixed in Congress as long as the Dems have a majority in the House.


To show this is wrong, find an election case where a president was elected without a majority of the membership in the EC. Today the membership total in the EC is 538. For any previous election, one must understand the EC membership total at the time.

1824. Adams won with 84 out of 261 votes. He was even the #2 guy, with Jackson receiving 99 votes. But, upon going to the House, Adams prevailed.
Not quite the same, but 1960 - HI sent two slates of electoral votes to Congress, BOTH certified by the Governor. Nixon, however, picked to count the Dem slate, although it didn't really matter since he lost with or without HI anyway.

There are several other examples of States not sending all of their electors, or electors failing to vote, but none of those situations involve an election that could have been changed by electoral votes not being counted, so the majority number didn't really matter.

Also, we get into very convoluted legalesing when you look at this - Electors were appointed, but might will have been either rescinded or flipped. As above, the only way to remove a rescinded vote once it's received by Congress, is by the House voting on whether or not the Gov legally certified it. Even IF (really big if here) the Gov DID de-certify, if the votes still make it to Congress, it then requires the House to vote to reject those votes. And if they're for Biden, you know they won't reject them. No matter what. But it's unlikely the Govs will decertify, given the pile of evidence and inability of the Repub legislatures to actually grow a spine.

[Svartalfiar]

Which state legislature has made a move to decertify?

None, yet. A decent (growing) number of Repubs have started questioning results and talking about decertification, but none of them have gotten their whole conference / House leadership fully on board yet. Many team players are starting to try, but none of the coaches are making those calls yet.

[Svartalfiar]

An interesting theory and I admit in many ways it makes sense, but since none of the electors are going to be decertified then we'll never find out if you're right or not.

In this election, true. Even if they miraculously find their balls and decertify, part of that process would most likely include certifying the Trump slate.

But, for a half-similar situation, you can look at the 1868 election - 251 EC votes were cast, but only 118 were needed to win as Congress determined 17 votes (LA and TN) to be ineligible. Not to mention all the Confederate States's EC votes were not included in the total, even though Lincoln and others argued that the States never truly left, since they weren't "allowed" to secede in the first place. If that was the case, their EC votes would have still been included in the vote, just not recorded as counting.

[Drew68]

His real name isn’t Pulitzer and everything else about him is phony.

I figures as much the first time I heard it.

He also goes by "Commander" but there's no record of military service.

This guy is a fruitcake, the type of nuts that are certain to populate Free Republic threads for the next four years as people here cling to whatever fanciful conspiracy that is just one court case away from overturning the election, sending Joe Biden to Gitmo, and returning Donald Trump to the White House.

[Hostage]

How is it you copy and paste so much but miss key details?

Did you intend to sandbag your point fallacy by word count?

The act of ‘rejecting’ Electors does not change the denominator which is 538. It merely adds to the ‘no vote’ column.

Your Adams example is not applicable to your error. You copied too much. There are words you radioed saying Adams prevailed in the House just as the 1804 ratified 12th Amendment requires.

Your error in logic would allow absurd scenarios such as all states protesting EC fraud and failing to certify Electors thereby tabulated as ‘no votes’ whereas DC certifies their 3 Electors. You would have the 3 DC Electors declared a majority.

The EC is 538 in number. Its votes are tabulated by candidates and no votes. Which ever candidate receives 270 or more is declared President. If no candidate receives 270, the election is taken under the 12th Amendment.

[Zeddicus]

12 months ago I would have thought you were completely bonkers if you told me that we would all willingly submit to wearing muzzles in public and all these other asinine social controls, to "protect us" from airborne cold virus that half or more of us likely already have preexisting T-cell immunity to, and is 99.5% survivable for those remaining susceptible. Yet here we are.

I no longer have a bar for casual disbelief.

[Zeddicus]

What the Dems in PA are claiming is that after nearly two months, 4 counties, including the 2 largest still have not added their totals to the list.

Translation: the 'rats need more time to cook up records for the fake voters needed to match the fake ballots.

[Svartalfiar]

Did you intend to sandbag your point fallacy by word count?

The act of ‘rejecting’ Electors does not change the denominator which is 538. It merely adds to the ‘no vote’ column.

I said there is a difference between electors being rescinded/rejected, and never being appointed in the first place. If electors were never appointed, it's a pretty clear situation where the majority of electors appointed goes down. If they're rescinded or rejected, however, I would still argue the same. Those aren't 'no' votes, they're votes that aren't accepted at all. Same thing as not voting, which, from Congress's standpoint, is the same as a State not having appointed those electors. They aren;t a vote for a thirs party of "no one", they're simply not included as votes in any total accounting. If you're counting the number of red and blue tennis balls in a box, and you find a couple racquet/lacrosse balls, those aren't added to the total as 'other', they're just ignored. You aren't counting them.


Your Adams example is not applicable to your error. You copied too much. There are words you radioed saying Adams prevailed in the House just as the 1804 ratified 12th Amendment requires.

Copied too much? You asked for an example when a President won without winning the EC. I gave you one. If you wanted an example of a President winning only because of a State failing to appoint electors, there isn't one because that situation has never arisen before. The few elections with similar situations had too much of a tilt in the rest of the States to where the votes at issue made no difference to the outcome either way. 2020 is the first time this has happened.


Your error in logic would allow absurd scenarios such as all states protesting EC fraud and failing to certify Electors thereby tabulated as ‘no votes’ whereas DC certifies their 3 Electors. You would have the 3 DC Electors declared a majority.

And that's how the Constitution is written. If a State doesn't appoint electors, how could they count towards the number of electors appointed? This isn't fancy legalese lawyer-speak, it's pretty plain English. If the Constitution was intended to require a majority of the total possible EC votes, why would they include wording that says something different?There are very few times when the Constitution requires a majority vote of the total possible of a certain group, and it explicitly says so. In fact, there's an example right there in the 12th Amendment!
a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Why says it requires a majority of all States, independent of how many are voting in this section, yet above, intend the same thing but instead say only of electors appointed? Those States aren't tabulated as "no votes", they're not-tabulated as "not votes". When Congress rejects a vote, they remove them before they're counted. They never get added to any total. If they were, all these double slates would mean that there's more than 538 EC votes, we just don't count them all. We could get 1076 EC votes if every State did that, heck, even more if you include third or fourth parties, but we're only gonna count 538 of them?

Your absurd scenario is not likely either - if every single State is protesting and not voting, there's much more going on and there'd be plenty of other things in play and not just DC picking the President.
Your absurd scenario here would mean "no" would win the election and we'd simply roll without a President for four years?

[Hostage]

> “You asked for an example when a President won without winning the EC. I gave you one.”

No, this was not what was asked. And no, you provided yet another error twisted into your false context.

You write with circular logic from fallacy to fallacy carrying error to error.

There are two constitutional ways a President can be elected:
1) By a majority of the EC where the denominator is the total number of memberships in the EC currently 538.
2) By a majority of 50 state delegations in the House of Representatives

The Adams case was decided in the House.

Enjoy walking in circles among your fallacies. Sorry but I have no more time for you. Good luck finding someone to give you the attention you seek.

[dandiegirl]

He’s Hannity’s lawyer too, or at least he was a short time ago when Hannity told all his viewers that Wood was his attorney.

[Svartalfiar]

No, this was not what was asked. And no, you provided yet another error twisted into your false context.

That is exactly what you asked. 84/261
find an election case where a president was elected without a majority of the membership in the EC.
- A president can only be elected without a majority of electors appointed by either a tie, or a failure of the winner to achieve the majority, with either choice then followed by a vote of the House.


You write with circular logic from fallacy to fallacy carrying error to error.

There are two constitutional ways a President can be elected:
1) By a majority of the EC where the denominator is the total number of memberships in the EC currently 538.
2) By a majority of 50 state delegations in the House of Representatives

The Adams case was decided in the House.

Enjoy walking in circles among your fallacies. Sorry but I have no more time for you. Good luck finding someone to give you the attention you seek.

Circular logic? I don't think you know what that means - none of my argument depends on itself to sustain the argument. Yes, the Adams case was decided in the House - because he failed to garner a majority of electors appointed. That has no bearing on any arguments for your #1. YOU have the fallacy in assuming that every single election will have every single EC vote slot appointed. The Constitution does not require a majority of 538, it requires a majority of electors appointed, which has a MAX of 538 - giving a majority of 270. But if not every elector is appointed, then the total electors appointed is LESS than 538, which means that majority of that number is LESS than 270.

[cherry]

Hostage, how are you feeling tonite about the Trump chances?....about the same, worse, better?...seems we’ve got to get these lazy arse states decertify their blatantly obvious crooked election....

[Hostage]

The states are not completely lazy, there are pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. The pro-Trump factions in state legislatures are working their butts off.

The only date hardwired into the Constitution is Jan 20.

There are a few scenarios I follow.

If Cruz succeeds in getting Pence to postpone the Jan 6 count for ten days, moving the count to Jan 16, it can give time for the states to decertify. AZ is close. GA is on fire, PA is embarrassed and can't explain their defects (fraud) which might cause their legislature to move faster in the direction of decertifying, WI is proven fraud now in detail to overturn the fraud.

Here's a good news update tweeted regarding WI:

FYI Wisconsin Update

-Wisconsin Legislature to introduce resolution to decert state and award it to Trump on Thursday; first order or business.

-Resolution does NOT require Governor signature.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/proposals/ar3

The real star to blow it all open is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer and his team who are proving fraud as we speak with methods that cannot be refuted. I used the verb prove referring to proof vs. evidence.

The frauds are fighting.

As Jovan's team got the authorization from the GA legislature to access the ballots, within a short time before Jovan's team arrived, a truck pulled up to load boxes containing hundreds of thousands of ballots to take them to a shredding facility. Jovan's team chased after them and stopped them.

The frauds managed to shred some but not all. Of those not shredded, there were pristine never-folded ballots with ovals for Biden filled in by Machine. No humans filled in the ballots. This is solid proof and is enough to overturn the election against Biden. There was also a ballot shipping label found stuck to the inside of a bin from CHINA.

Jovan's team is working around the lock, not stopping.

One of Jovan's team was fired at by a gun.

What Joven can do is to compile his findings into massive irrefutable fraud and present them to state legislatures as early as tomorrow. This will get legislators sitting on the fence to make a decision. Jovan's evidence cannot be refuted. I take that back, some govt people are so dumb, they will argue water is not wet. But the majority will move to assemble and decertify.

Then Pence has to delay the Jan 6 giving Cruz his 10 days.

I think Pence will come through if Jovan shows the irrefutable findings.

[cherry]

re Wisconsin....some posters are saying that the Wisconsin statements seem like its for future elections no necessarily this one....

also I understand that some legislatures are not even in session right now....

the right and proper thing to happen in a just world would be for 3 large states to decertify their rat electors and instead, install trump electors.

[Hostage]

My sense is the Assembly Resolution is written as a result of an angry population of voters who are not going to allow legislators to sweep it under the carpet until next time.

It’s the voters that are pushing this.

The resolution I linked was to get the issues before the legislature.

They have the results of the Rudy Giuliani team verifying individual fraud voters as ‘indefinitely confined’. Those fraudulent votes greatly exceed the false margin of victory of Biden.

With Pulitzer’s team possibly arriving to prove which ballets are irrefutably fraudulent, there can be no other option but to decertify.

[cherry]

of course everything you say is correct.....