3507

There have been plenty of audits about the e******n already. The Trump side doesn't really want "an audit"; instead, it only wants "an audit that says what they want it to say". Just like Trump called Raffensperger and said he just wanted Raffensperger to "find" 17,000 v**es for Trump. Not "count all the v**es correctly", but (effectively) "count the v**es so that somehow I win".

I read that there's a legal time limit; after a certain date the e******n cannot be legally audited anymore.

JW

[3507]Nicely said (though possibly a little confusing to me). However, there have already been court cases about the e******n. Those are an investigation. Court is where the fruits of an investigation are aired and evaluated. The investigation comes before the court hears the evidence. The J*** 6 event isn't really an investigation though.

Addendum:

Generally, investigations are good.

Spreading false rumors or misleading people, or trying to overturn a l********e e******n, or c***ting, would not be good. Agreed, so far.

The court cases brought by the Trump side already constitute an investigation about whether the Biden side c***ted. The court cases require an open forum hearing of the evidence uncovered in an investigation. In most cases, that has not happened. Nobody stopped that investigation. It's been going on and on. But it has failed to prove anything significant about c***ting by the Biden side; even the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts and Republican e******n officials, generally (many courts and many officials) with the various Republican influences baked into them, do not support the idea that the Biden side c***ted. Trump side has won 71% of the lawsuits actually heard by the courts. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/exclusive-accurate-list-2020-e******n-f***d-cases-shows-87-total-cases-trump-gop-won-71-cases-merits-heard/ There was, for example, one case in Nevada, the document of which I've posted in other threads, in which the matter was investigated as thoroughly as a court could do, but they can't make something out of nothing. Once more, courts do not investigate anything. They hear the fruits of the investigation.

There can also be an investigation to see whether the Trump side is spreading false rumors, misleading people, and attempting to overturn a l********e e******n. The Democrats in Congress (House & Senate) would like to make a congressional investigation about that (a congressional investigation into the J*** 6 event and what caused it); but that which they want to do is being blocked by Republicans in Congress (the Senate). If a substantial number of people question any aspect of an e******n, a thorough investigation is warranted and should not be impeded by either side.

Regarding the Nevada lawsuit, if this is the one you are referring to, https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/12/05/judge-shuns-trump-team-nevada-fraud-suit-despite-20-binders-of-affidavits-forensic-analysis-evidence-1002540/ the judge ruled on the evidence summarily. It got no hearing, there was no trial. That has been the case in most of the cases Trump's side has tried to get a hearing on.

JW

There have been no audits except the one in AZ and the one in Antrim county, MI. There have been so-called recounts but only those two audits. The one in MI completely reversed the v**e totals making Trump the clear winner. We'll shortly see what AZ has found.

Regarding the call to Raffensperger; https://www.vox.com/2021/3/16/22333805/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia

ALL of the prior reporting on it was false and corrections were published. Trump never asked anyone to "find" any v**es. He asked them to root out the "dishonesty". I'm not aware of any time limit on possible e******n f***d... other than the practical one; it's financially pointless to spend money on an e******n investigation if the next e******n comes before the investigation can be taken to court. However, if t***h is important to enough people, and evidence is still viable, no price is too high to find t***h.

3507

That link does refer to the same case I mentioned, in Nevada, with Judge Russell. The court document is 34 pages (if not including the certificate of mailing). It is signed by Judge Russell and dated Dec. 4. The 34-page document is available here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420186/order-granting-motion-to-dismiss-statement-of-contest-1.pdf

You want "open forum" hearings. I'm generally in favor of open court hearings. I know that sometimes courts restrict access in various ways. At every court I've ever been to, attendees were not allowed to have tape recorders, which I think they should be allowed to use in most kinds of hearings. There are some reasons why access would need to be restricted, at some kinds of hearings.

I don't know exactly why e******n case hearings would not be "open" and I'm disappointed if they are not "open"; however, I can imagine there might be some valid reason for restricting access (such that they're not open-court hearings). I would not want them forced totally open if there's some sufficient reason why they should not be open.

We do know that _e******ns_ are not _entirely_ open: we know that individual v**ers' identities are "secret" on their "b****ts" in that the public is not allowed to know which individuals v**ed for which candidate or which side of an issue.

One of the reasons courts or court appointees (generally, in other kinds of cases) sometimes offer for restricting access is that they must guard "confidentiality"; and so now (I suppose) maybe at some point in the e******n case process they have to examine b****ts at the non-confidential level and then disallow the public from seeing that level of examination. In that way the "secret" identity of an individual v**er of each b****t would be maintained. This is just a thought; I don't know such details about the case.

You say the judge ruled on the evidence "summarily". I don't know what that means technically, but in normal language I'd expect "summarily" to mean briefly and without much ado. The 34-page document does not look brief to me; and it looks like somebody, at least one person, presumably the judge, did carefully examine the case and took the trouble to write down all the logic so that we can see judge's logic.

Page 2, lines 9-11 assert that the Court reviewed (essentially) everything (that it should review). Then the document goes on to describe this review process.

p2L26 - p3L6 appears to vet or establish credibility of Runbeck E******n Services.

p3L15-19 appears to establish credibility of signature verification software.

And so on, and on for many pages, about each part of the e******n process.

p7L18 mentions a printout. L17 calls this "the v**er verified paper audit trail".

p8L19-26 describe a couple of checks on the v****g machines. At least part of that involves the paper trail (which I personally think is important in e******ns). Did Diebold v****g machines make a paper trail back in 2000 (and 2004) when G. W. Bush became (and remained) president? I don't think so.

p10L13-18: Why did Kraus dismiss its own appeal?

p11L11-13: Why did Stoke plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their own case?

p11L26: It looks like Contestants missed a deadline.

p12L1-8: It looks like some of the witnesses for Contestants were not available for cross-examination; and, that that's "much of Contestants' evidence".

p12L14-p13L8 describes various evidence offered by Plaintiffs. So, should Mr. Baselice be able to identify the source of the data for his survey? Should Mr. Kamzol's data been supervised and should its origins be known? Should Mr. Gessler have citations? Should he have corroborated anything "through independent investigation"? Did he?

p13L20-p14L4 is describing one of the witnesses for Defendants. By the description, this person (Herron) looks like a wonderful witness. It ends by saying, "he produced all of the data on which he relied, such that his conclusions are testable by others in his field." I like that. p14L2-3: "His methodology is reliable because it is similar to that which he uses in his published work". What published work? This published work: p13L22-25: "has published academic papers in peer-reviewed journals about e******n administration and v***r f***d; and has an extensive record of serving as an expert on related topics in litigation before numerous courts, none of which has found that his testimony lacks credibility."

p15L16-18: "Dr. Herron's testimony is buttressed by Contestants' own expert witness, Mr. Gessler, who also testified that he has no personal knowledge that any v****g fraud occurred in Nevada's 2020 General E******n. Gessler Dep. 7:3-9, 40:13-12." If Contestants had some evidence of v****g fraud in that E******n, wouldn't that show up in this court document? Like, right in this little part of this court document? A little further on, p17L16-23 describes attempts by Contestants to establish that v***r f***d occurred (by allegedly invalid signatures), and why the court "does not support a finding that illegal b****ts were cast because the signature on the b****t envelope did not match the v**er's signature."

JW

forum
[ˈfôrəm]
NOUN
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
"it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"

synonyms:
meeting · assembly · gathering · conference · seminar · convention · colloquy · [more]
a website or web page where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings.

NORTH AMERICAN
a court or tribunal.
synonyms:
court of law · law court · bench · bar · court of justice · judicature · tribunal · chancery · assizes · courtroom · palais de justice

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was referring to open court hearings.

Summary dismissal simply means no trial, no cross examination of witnesses, no evaluation of evidence by expert witnesses.

The Nevada case was not considered by a jury nor was it ever tested. In other words, they never had their day in court. If the plaintiffs brought evidence, especially sworn affidavits, the place to test is in open forum/court, not in a judge's chambers.

Like the vast majority of the other cases, they were denied their day in court. Irrespective of how many pages it took the judge to say pfffft, they were denied due process.

Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest

Part of the problem in some states, was unqualified people changing the rules at the last minute. That's the job of legislators!

JW

yup!

Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest

Gentlemen:

Keep in mind that the gold-fringed f**g you see in every courtroom today represents Admiralty Law, and a ruling from the court may be based on foreign law.

3507

I disagree about the Nevada case. It is not necessary to have a jury for every case. For an e******n case like that, a jury of ordinary people would probably know so much less than the judge that they'd be worse than useless. (More about that in a minute.) Instead, the Nevada case has the written statement with written reasoning by the judge, and to dispute about that case one should address what's written in that document. If the judge did badly then it would go to appeal. If it doesn't go to an appeals court then it's probably because the Contestants don't have any substantial argument against what the judge wrote.

When there's a p**********l e******n, if the losing candidate can insist on trial by jury again and again, if it's a jury of ordinary people, eventually some such trials are going to end one way and other such trials are going to end the other way. It's much better to have the judge's document so that knowledge and arguments can build on something (such as to take the case to appeal and argue against what the judge wrote), instead of having to start at ground zero every one of the hundred or thousand times the losing candidate wants to throw the dice and hope for a favorable mix of ordinary people on a jury.

The ordinary people already v**ed in the e******n; it wouldn't do any good to just keep throwing the e******n at smaller numbers (12 per jury) of them. If the e******n was bad, how much better would be 12 people v****g in a jury: even if they did understand all the things that one needs to know to judge such an e******n, the jury itself could be corrupted. And then what would you do: throw the matter to an even smaller number of ordinary citizens? The e******n was a v**e of millions, each first level jury would be a v**e of 12, and if that were to make sense, then the 2nd level juries to judge the corruption of the 1st-level juries could be juries of some yet smaller number of people.

As a better alternative, with a judge's statement of reasoning some of the details can be cleared away. Some of these Contestants in these cases are dismissing their own cases or their own appeals! They are insubstantial, they cannot dispute what the judge wrote, they don't even appeal it to a higher court, and they are being cleared away as insubstantial details.

It isn't enough for them to just make up stuff. A court's job is to separate the merely made-up stuff from the more substantial stuff. Anyone can see this in the document itself. Some trials are called "bench trials" which don't have juries. Bench trials have worth too (particularly if they result in written statements of reasoning and are subject to appeal).

Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest