The American “Coup d’etat”

[Thunderian]

What facts?

These are some facts about the vote in Georgia.

2,560 felons voted
66,247 underage voters
2,423 votes from people not registered
1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes
4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state
395 individuals who voted in two states
15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election
40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county
30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification

You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to agree that things like that are wrong and should be investigated, do you?

 

[vancityeagle]

I guess the one consolation some people might take as the soft-gloved fingers of the “Great Reset” iron hand closes on the liberties and freedoms once enjoyed in the US is that they got the man they wanted.

I don’t like Biden, Hilary or Obama, or what they stand for. Sometimes the only way people realise is by getting what they wanted. It may be that the far left will get what they want but I pray that if that happens, people see what those policies in action really look like.

Nobody on the "far left" wanted Obama, Biden, or Clinton, so you cannot say they are "getting what they want"

All 3 of those are neoliberals, which means essentially they are right wing when it comes to economics. So no leftists would cheer that on, leftists oppose Neoliberalism. Its also that leftists would oppose Trump, more than they oppose that kind of Neoliberalism.

Cornel West put it perfectly.

"I prefer a neoliberal nightmare over a fascist catastrophe"

Thing is man we cannot even have a fruitful discussion when you believe outright mistrust not based in reality. We have to agree on a certain foundation.

If you believe Obama/Clinton/Biden are "radical leftists" with a radical left agenda, then you are already out to lunch and there is little reasoning with you.

8 years of Obama got us

- Healthcare written by the right wing Heritage Foundation
- expanded covert wars
- record mass deportations
- no substance on BLM demands, only token support

If you think that is some "liberal/commie" agenda Im sorry to say but you are a brainwashed fool. You wouldn't be amongst a minority either.

 

[vancityeagle]

These are some facts about the vote in Georgia.

2,560 felons voted
66,247 underage voters
2,423 votes from people not registered
1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes
4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state
395 individuals who voted in two states
15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election
40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county
30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification

You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to agree that things like that are wrong and should be investigated, do you?

Your source for all that ?

Even if true some of that is irrelevant, for instance felons are allowed to vote in Georgia. So why is that statistic on the list ? That would seem to indicate its just a list of meaningless shit meant to influence a person who does not have the ability or will to fact check.

Thats how social media propaganda works.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Your source for all that ?

Ray Smith, Georgia hearing.

Starting 25:40

 

[Artful Revealer]

Even if true some of that is irrelevant, for instance felons are allowed to vote in Georgia. So why is that statistic on the list ? That would seem to indicate its just a list of meaningless shit meant to influence a person who does not have the ability or will to fact check.

Thats how social media propaganda works.

Even if you take out the felons, you still have 140k illegal votes in a state won by 12k.

Your reply?

 

[justjess]

No I said/meant there were general public health concerns, that in turn, were used to usher in unconstitutional and insecure voting procedural
response. So they are breaking certain state and federal laws to uphold another .... makes sense???

I don’t agree that they are breaking the law by amending the law to reflect current circumstances. We will wait and see if the Supreme Court believes they did but imo they did not.

 

[Artful Revealer]

TX Lawsuit claims the odds of Joe Biden winning in all of the defendant states at 3am November 4th is 1 in a quadrillion to the fourth power.

Or 1 in:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(that's 60 zeros)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

If you think that is some "liberal/commie" agenda Im sorry to say but you are a brainwashed fool. You wouldn't be amongst a minority either.

Without taking offence, what would represent your ideal political leadership in the US, (if the Dems don’t go politically left enough for you?)

If your ideal ideology is not demonstrated by any current political system, is there a country that exemplifies it the best or a thinker or writer who expresses it?

 

[vancityeagle]

Even if you take out the felons, you still have 140k illegal votes in a state won by 12k.

Your reply?

I would have to analyze each category and confirm those numbers to be true from a legitimate source.

I just quickly looked at the felon thing, and that is a useless stat so I doubt the others are legit.

If you look at the 2nd largest category

30,000 to 40,000 inadequate signatures.

#1 There is no way to tell who the inadequate signatures voted for unless you literally call them up.

#2 Claiming a signature does not match IS SUBJECTIVE. Its not a science. The person doing the check could literally just decide the signature doesn't match even if it is a little off. You could see how somebody with an agenda could just claim no matches. This just seems like a loophole to disenfranchize voters. Not like this is anything new.

 

[A.J.]

If anyone cares to review ..... if you are not going to consider the severity of the charges and just regurgitate deep state messaging then there really is nothing more to discuss. I would like this to receive the scrutiny it deserves. If it doesn’t, oh well, Trump ain’t my savior. But I’m also not going to pretend anything having to do/conflicting with the luciferian state agenda (aligned with their not so secret mission) is legit when clearly it ain’t. Not sure what any of you are actually doing here. I’d have to know if you believe any conspiracies and why? And understand why you think the shadow government is all in for trump while everything else seems legit. I just don’t follow the consistency of your logic as far as the global elite. Who do you think they are and what do you believe their agenda to be? Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset/Fourth Industrial Revolution has been clearly laid out and to achieve it our liberty must be extinguished once and for all. Blatant, unchallenged voter fraud to overturn the will of the majority is the final nail.

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little
or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.”



[T]hat form of government which is best contrived to
secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”
—John Adams
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little

2
or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.
Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.
This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under
See https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/05/dekalb- county-cannot-find-chain-of-custody-records-for-absentee- ballots-deposited-in-drop-boxes-it-has-not-been-determined-if- responsive-records-to-your-request-exist/
1

3
the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.
Against that background, the State of Texas
(“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against
Defendant States based on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant
States’ administration of the 2020 election under the
Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2.
3.
4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently,
“Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. ... Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.”
592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is
no different.
This case presents a question of law: Did
Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the
appointment of presidential electors?
Those unconstitutional changes opened
the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what
the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo,
Roman

4
5. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:
• Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more

5
than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;2
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers—despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain
of custody.
All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a- 151a”). See Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson, 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2020) at ¶¶ 26-55 & Doc. Nos. 1-2, 1-4.
USB drives were the only items taken, and
potentially could be used to alter vote tallies
2
The laptop and the

6
8. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court. In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4- 4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court. Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
9. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.
10. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of

7
that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.
11. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31.
12. Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the

8
President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”). Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
15. The number of absentee and mail-in ballots that have been handled unconstitutionally in Defendant States greatly exceeds the difference between the vote totals of the two candidates for President of the United States in each Defendant State.
16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future. This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review. The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this action because it is a “controvers[y] between two or more States” under Article III, § 2, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2018).
18. In a presidential election, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected.....

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

 

[vancityeagle]

Without taking offence, what would represent your ideal political leadership in the US, (if the Dems don’t go politically left enough for you?)

If your ideal ideology is not demonstrated by any current political system, is there a country that exemplifies it the best or a thinker or writer who expresses it?

So are you agreeing the Dems are not left ?

Yeah they are left RELATIVE to Republicans sure, I'll give you that, but they still are not left.

Neither their domestic economic or foreign policies are left. Perhaps they give token/symbolic pandering to leftist identity politics, but again nothing substantial actually changes from their Neoliberal agenda.

I liked the things Jill Stein said in 2016. She was the closest thing I've seen of an American politician holding my views. Even if I believe she was ultimately being used by the Russians to undermine Clinton, I still liked her platform.

I dont think any country would exemplify my beliefs. Sure the social democratic countries in Scandinavia are better, but they too do not go far enough.

I also want to compare like for like countries so I'm only going to keep this discussion amongst the First world.

Writers/Thinkers like Michael Parenti, Cornell West, Chris Hedges, Webster Tarpley are people I respect.

 

[Artful Revealer]

I would have to analyze each category and confirm those numbers to be true from a legitimate source.

I just quickly looked at the felon thing, and that is a useless stat so I doubt the others are legit.

If you look at the 2nd largest category

30,000 to 40,000 inadequate signatures.

#1 There is no way to tell who the inadequate signatures voted for unless you literally call them up.

#2 Claiming a signature does not match IS SUBJECTIVE. Its not a science. The person doing the check could literally just decide the signature doesn't match even if it is a little off. You could see how somebody with an agenda could just claim no matches. This just seems like a loophole to disenfranchize voters. Not like this is anything new.

It's a comforting thought to know the final judgment relies on your analysis. It's not like these numbers by Ray Smith are written down in sworn testimonies and punishable by 5 years imprisonment upon being false.

 

[vancityeagle]

If anyone cares to review ..... if you are not going to consider the severity of the charges and just regurgitate deep state messaging then there really is nothing more to discuss. I would like this to receive the scrutiny it deserves. If it doesn’t, oh well, Trump ain’t my savior. But I’m also not going to pretend anything having to do with the luciferian state agenda that does not align with their not so secret mission is legit when clearly it ain’t. Not sure what any of you are actually doing here. I’d have to know if you believe any conspiracies and why? And understand why you think the shadow government is all in for trump while everything else seems legit. I just don’t follow the consistency of your logic as far as the global elite. Who do you think they are and what do you believe their agenda to be? Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset/Fourth Industrial Revolution has been clearly laid out and to achieve it our liberty must be extinguished once and for all. Blatant, unchallenged voter fraud to overturn the will of the majority is the final nail.

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little
or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.”



[T]hat form of government which is best contrived to
secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”
—John Adams
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little

2
or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.
Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.
This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under
See https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/05/dekalb- county-cannot-find-chain-of-custody-records-for-absentee- ballots-deposited-in-drop-boxes-it-has-not-been-determined-if- responsive-records-to-your-request-exist/
1

3
the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.
Against that background, the State of Texas
(“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against
Defendant States based on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant
States’ administration of the 2020 election under the
Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2.
3.
4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently,
“Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. ... Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.”
592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is
no different.
This case presents a question of law: Did
Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the
appointment of presidential electors?
Those unconstitutional changes opened
the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what
the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo,
Roman

4
5. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:
• Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more

5
than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;2
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers—despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain
of custody.
All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a- 151a”). See Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson, 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2020) at ¶¶ 26-55 & Doc. Nos. 1-2, 1-4.
USB drives were the only items taken, and
potentially could be used to alter vote tallies
2
The laptop and the

6
8. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court. In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4- 4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court. Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
9. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.
10. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of

7
that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.
11. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31.
12. Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the

8
President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”). Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
15. The number of absentee and mail-in ballots that have been handled unconstitutionally in Defendant States greatly exceeds the difference between the vote totals of the two candidates for President of the United States in each Defendant State.
16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future. This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review. The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this action because it is a “controvers[y] between two or more States” under Article III, § 2, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2018).
18. In a presidential election, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected.....

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Your problem is that you are looking at the gameboard linearly, while it is 4 dimensional.

You are playing checkers when the game is actually chess.

The elites are not defined by 1 way of thinking, 1 agenda, or 1 organization, or one grouping of media.

Once you realize this you can see that your good vs evil scenario is not whats at play here.

You are witnessing a conflict among elites, 1 group of elites wants to use YOU as leverage against another group of elites, while gaslighting you that they are "for the people"

You are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book. That is the real conspiracy.

 

[vancityeagle]

It's a comforting thought to know the final judgment relies on your analysis. It's not like these numbers by Ray Smith are written down in sworn testimonies and punishable by 5 years imprisonment upon being false.

Is claiming a signature mismatch subjective or not ?

 

[Artful Revealer]

17 states now officially support the TX lawsuit to be filed.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1336764610993655810

 

[Artful Revealer]

Good riddance, hag.

Michigan Lawmaker Removed From Committees, Citing 'Threats' in Video

m.theepochtimes.com

 

[Artful Revealer]

Is claiming a signature mismatch subjective or not ?

Depends on the signatures.

 

[vancityeagle]

Depends on the signatures.

So do you believe the majority of those 30,000 to 40,000 (why is there not a specific number) mismatches are slightly different or completely different ?

Do you not see how this is all speculation and problematic ?

 

[justjess]

Is claiming a signature mismatch subjective or not ?

True story I’ve had checks that I’ve wrote returned By my bank for signature mismatch that I sure as hell signed myself.

 

[vancityeagle]

Again the real coup is the blatant attempts by Trump and Republicans to suppress voters by dismantling the postal service, shutting down polling stations, trying every legal loophole to have votes thrown out, and pushing silly conspiracy theories to delegitimize the election.

This is what should be concerning defenders of freedom, not outright lies and half baked conspiracies.

Freedom is just a talking point to the right wing, not a true belief. Or freedom for them but not for you.