Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="floridays" data-source="post: 4697475" data-attributes="member: 68849">One vote ballots, top of the ticket, that is what they had to find when they stopped the count.In PA the fraud started when the Democrat party went to the legislature and asked for new rules, using china virus as the attack point.The Legislature refused to satisfy their request, they (democrats) went to the state Supreme Court who granted.That was the first Constitutional problem, the next problem was when the Supremes did not get involved when a Constitutional question existed. Give your thanks to John Roberts or all of Pennsylvania&#039;s problems. Read his opinion.One thing you must understand, fraud is a term that is not used loosely when the target&nbsp; of a claim is a politician or judge. Things don&#039;t normally work out well if one does.The thin line to walk is giving enough evidence to a court that gives them cause to rule on your behalf and force discovery.No court wants their hands on this, that was exactly what the democrats knew when they engineered this fraud.I&#039;m not in front of a judge, I can call it exactly what it is.It&#039;s clear it was engineered, if not why out of 50 states would it only happen in the states that could swing the election.Every thing I have said here is personal thought except for the factual events by the Legislature and the courts.I stand to be corrected.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="floridays, post: 4697475, member: 68849"] One vote ballots, top of the ticket, that is what they had to find when they stopped the count. In PA the fraud started when the Democrat party went to the legislature and asked for new rules, using china virus as the attack point. The Legislature refused to satisfy their request, they (democrats) went to the state Supreme Court who granted. That was the first Constitutional problem, the next problem was when the Supremes did not get involved when a Constitutional question existed. Give your thanks to John Roberts or all of Pennsylvania's problems. Read his opinion. One thing you must understand, fraud is a term that is not used loosely when the target of a claim is a politician or judge. Things don't normally work out well if one does. The thin line to walk is giving enough evidence to a court that gives them cause to rule on your behalf and force discovery. No court wants their hands on this, that was exactly what the democrats knew when they engineered this fraud. I'm not in front of a judge, I can call it exactly what it is. It's clear it was engineered, if not why out of 50 states would it only happen in the states that could swing the election. Every thing I have said here is personal thought except for the factual events by the Legislature and the courts. I stand to be corrected. [/QUOTE]

Verification