Replies

You are correct in general. But in this context, it can be very simple. If it is so simple and clear, an appeal is near guaranteed to uphold a challenge.

I've spent a career watching judges do things they plainly shouldn't do. SCOTUS was required to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania. It didn't. Common law judges are very powerful political actors. The corruption is massive. Lawsuits aren't guaranteed to succeed, but they do expose the extent to which the judiciary has been compromised. Always remember that no case is any better than its facts. republicans have done a poor job of requiring local processing of ballots, and having witnesses on the ground to handle the ballots and witness their contents, etc.

In general, you are correct. But this time Dan Schultz’s Precinct Strategy placed massive numbers (triple of past numbers) of poll watchers to observe the election. It made some difference but not enough.

Two things:

1. Konnech CCP case exposed by Englebrecht and Phillips.

2. Kristofer Jurski exposing the fraud is not so much at the voting booths as it is the voting rolls, explained here:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4106441/posts

Here’s another nugget, Youngkin and DeSantis Victories, using similar tech, hands off as ordered by Bush clan, not because they are Republicans, but because they’re being setup to dislodge Trump who they hate. In other words, if the order had gone out to take down either, it could have been done.