Thread by @kingfre3dom, And now we get to Wisconsin…. This one is the state I [...]

And now we get to Wisconsin…. This one is the state I personally found the most interesting.

the reason why is that WI has EXCELLENT election laws. And the democrats followed approximately ZERO of them.

Fun facts for WI

1) this is the only state that the SoS didn’t get thrown to the wolves in this lawsuit

And

2) from 2016-2020 VBM increased by 900%

The main law that the case is targeting is this one.

Specifically that WI law is SUUUUPER specific about all drop-off locations for absentee ballots must be staffed by a person..

but someone must not have told the mayors of WI’s five largest cities this because what did they do?

They put out an insane amount of unmanned drop-boxes.

how many?

Somewhere in the ballpark of 500.

but the funny story of this isn’t the fact that they violated the law with UNMANNED drop boxes… they violated the law with ANY drop boxes

WI law specifically PRECLUDES the use of drop boxes at all, requiring ballots to be dropped off with the municipal clerk (or similar)

Seriously though… WI law does NOT mess around with their laws about drop-boxes.

like… just read these…

So not only is there a law that says “unmanned drop boxes are NOT permitted,” they went a step further and said that “any ballot mailed or delivered via drop box is not to be counted.”

And just in case you didn’t think they were serious about that, they made an entirely SEPARATE las that says “we meant it. This is mandatory.”

AND

Ballots cast this way wont be used in the certification process of ANY election

This is a re-post screen shot of a few tweets back but I just want to remind you all that IN THE FACE OF ALL THAT….

the mayors of the five largest WI cities STILL decided that drop-boxes would be ok….

Thats enough right? Pack it up, go home?

wrong! Apparently the drop-box nonsense was to passive for WI dems so they decided to play the “COVID” card as well..

How? Some called “indefinite confinement” (which I’ll call IC)

IC is if you are either very old, very sick, or disabled. The WI law specifies this…

if you are IC then you dont have to show ID to get an absentee ballot (see where this is going?)

well.. the WI election committee actively encouraged EVERYONE to declare IC because of COVID

They had elected officials and county clerks of Dane and Milwaukee county telling people to do this.

WI GOP saw this and brought it to court

SCOWI UNANIMOUSLY said that “no”

So they stopped but they also refused to remove the people already declared IC (thats March-May)

that is ALSO in violation of WI voting laws saying that if people are no longer IC they have to tell the clerk… well the WEC wouldnt let that happen..

But come on… how many people could that be? They did that for 3 months!

how about 216000 voters (up from 57k in 2016)

Let me put that differently.

thats 216,000 voters that did not have to go through any of the normal security for voting… including showing ID, or even a signature verification. (The margin is just over 20,000 for Biden)

But WI had MORE laws around absentee voting… democrats were SUPER determined to rig this state apparently.

those laws come in the form of address verification that has to be essentially notarized saying “I live here, this is my address.” The witness ALSO needs an address on it

So what did they do?

well the Milwaukee Election Commission was SOOOO nice that if there wasn’t a witness address, they (through I assume some sort of magic) found the witnesses address on behalf of the voter and filled out he missing info in red pen….

I’ll repeat that…

If the absentee ballot was missing the proper witness information to make it a LEGAL vote… they were going around ADDING the legal information so that they could count the vote.

I probably dont need to say this, but that is against WI election law… if a ballot is returned with incomplete certification they may return the ballot to fix it or it doesnt count…

oh… and this is in multiple witness affidavits that they saw this practice happening.

And again, just a reminder...

this is NOT ratified by the WI legislature and their election laws aren’t severable either.

So like… idk what WI dems were expecting was going to happen..

BUT WE ARENT DONE WITH WISCONSIN

Because now we have the testimony of Ethan Pease who was a driver for USPS.

he testifies that USPS workers were backdating ballots and were being told by supervisors to do so.

And just to add an additional thing to this… Pease testifies that on 11/4 (the day after Election Day) his supervisor told him that 100k ballots were “missing.”

Somehow, someway, those ballots were found and then Biden ended up with a 20,565 vote margin of victory

amazing.

Well no we get into the counts.. I’m debating on going to bed and picking up again tomorrow morning or just powering through, but either way, here’s a gif of how this is basically turning out.

alright… lets finish this guy up, because we’re in the home stretch of it.

Count 1 is the Electors clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which pretty clearly states that the state legislatures make the laws around elections.

And remember, this is the main crux of the case. Each of these states had an executive(s) who either changed the laws around ballot counting and signature verification OR different groups arbitrarily started to use rules the legislature did not pass… well thats an issue…

it can’t get any more clear on the matter than Bush v Gore (2000) which reaffirmed that non-legislative actors don’t have the authority to amend or nullify election laws…

which… each state/executive did…like this isn’t even a question. They did this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

But to make it even MORE clear, there is an additional case that set precedent for this. Heckler v Chaney (1985) which goes so far to say that ANY conscious action by the executive to “nullify or ignore requirements of election statutes violates the Electors Clause..”

Whats more is that because the Electors Clause was violated it means that any electors appointed are constitutionally invalid.

another reason why “Safe Harbor Day” means nothing.

The Electors Clause violation might be the most important part of this case because its main point is to maintain a separation of powers. IMO this is pretty easy and is backed up by good precedent.

In a sane world this should be a 9-0 decision in favor of the plaintiffs

And this is a reason to take heart. What was the pre-text that the state level executives did all of this?

COVID.

Meaning that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs not only is great for the election but it also reigns in the fiat power of governors to not do things like… close business… close churches… require masks… and any other of these insane things that have come out of the virus

Again referencing what I put waaayyy earlier in the thread.

1) watch the Alito address if you haven’t

2) read the SCOTUS decision on religious liberties from Cali and NY, both ruling in favor of the Constitution

I expect THIS ruling to be the same 5-4 or 6-3 for plaintiffs

Count II: Equal Protections

The standards cannot be different for tabulation within the states and MUST meet established legal requirements (meaning the legislature decided requirements)

This is also good precedent set in Bush v. Gore

Precedent also requires only counting valid votes and discarding invalid votes with a “one-person, one-vote” principle.

Remember how I was showing you where the case kept repeating that it “materially benefits Biden”? This is part of why that’s important.

Not only is equal protections an argument to be made WITHIN the states (cure-ing in D counties but not R) but it also is an argument for the entire county defining federal elections as a “shared enterprise.”

These states are disenfranchising every state that followed the law

From my reading of this, it seems that if the Electors Clause is upheld, SCOTUS will likely agree with the Equal Protection part of the lawsuit.

Count III: Due Process, which from what I’m seeing in the lawsuit is backed and supported by the MOST case precedent.

Literally everything NOT highlighted is a case that has precedent.

and this isnt rocket-science.

An intentional failure or refusal to follow their own legislatively selected election laws.

thats due process. Established rules are followed and everyone gets a fair shake.

ANOTHER big ruling for separation of powers, especially because the excuse to circumvent due process (just like the Electors Clause) was because of COVID.

In an ideal world, Due Process would be rigorously followed with little executive fiat.

I expect the court to uphold that

The case concludes with the accusation that not only did the defendant states NOT follow due process (using COVID as cover) but they did this with the express intent of getting Biden elected

Evidence of fraud will prove bad faith on the states part and this will be found TRUE

Like any lawsuit, they ask for relief from the courts, and most of them are pretty standard.

The short version of it is “declare our case to be correct, order defendant states to appoint new electors or no electors at all.”

AND THATS IT! I know that as of right now, Trump has filed to intervene, which makes sense.

He may or may not be granted that and in the end I’m not sure if it matters one way or another if he is or not.

Again, this is a layup case. Should be 9-0 but will likely be 5-4 or 6-3

Addendum:

Don’t be surprised if/when other lawsuits in states move to withdraw.

With this case active, there isnt a point to have multiple splintered lawsuits across all of these states.

Latest Threads Unrolled: