Joe Biden Wins

[tulc]

Can you understand destruction of evidence. Missing Zip drives, thrown away envelopes, no bipartisan observation of vote counts (in the same room out of sight does not count)and on and on. Unfolded pristine ballots, ballots not matching voter roll numbers, a physically impossible amount of votes entered into voting machines beyond its ability to physically count that number. I am amazed at the unconcern fir a truly free and fair election and on and on

You know what we call all of the above in Chicago? Someone with no evidence. You know what we call a case without any evidence to support it's claim in Chicago? Case is dismissed. Here's a quick rule of thumb: "Courts like evidence, not excuses." As a bonus, you know what we call Joe Biden in Chicago? The next President of the United States. You all might want to get used to that. Because come Jan. 20th at noon, that's going to be a thing.
tulc(just didn't want anyone being taken by surprise on Jan 20th)

 

[Archivist]

See you didn’t have time to look at the evidence in the court filing. They have been submitted and not yet ruled on in these cases filed by Sidney Powell. You do not want see evidence you want to close your eyes and repeat over and over again there is none,

Where are these cases are filed? What courts? What are the party names? Do you know the judges they are before?

 

[parousia70]

No I was just resounding to you. I haven’t heard them say that. I am sure you can provide a video clip.?

As video was not allowed in the courtroom, you’ll have to settle for an audio clip:
Hear It for Yourself: Rudy Giuliani Flubs Law and Facts in Federal Court as Pa. Counties Skewer ‘Disgraceful’ Performance

And court transcripts:
Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.

Here’s the relevant quote from Trumps attorney and the judge:


in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.


Mr. Goldstein at first declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”

Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
“To my knowledge at present, no,” Mr. Goldstein said.

So again I’ll ask..
Are Donald Trumps lawyers lying under oath In Court or telling the truth when they say “this is not a fraud case” and “we have no evidence of fraud”?

which do you say it is?
Lying or truth telling?

it can only be one or the other.

choose wisely.

 

[Archivist]

Probably worth pointing out that the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was unanimous. This was not an anti-Trump decision by the Democrats.

 

[parousia70]

There is good reason why Donald Trump’s attorney say one thing in the press, and say the completely opposite under oath in a court of law.
In one venue, court, they risk jail time and having their law licenses revoked and being disbarred if they lie there.

in press conferences, they have no such truth telling requirement.

 

[Postvieww]

As video was not allowed in the courtroom, you’ll have to settle for an audio clip:
Hear It for Yourself: Rudy Giuliani Flubs Law and Facts in Federal Court as Pa. Counties Skewer ‘Disgraceful’ Performance

And court transcripts:
Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.

Here’s the relevant quote from Trumps attorney and the judge:


in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.


Mr. Goldstein at first declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”

Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
“To my knowledge at present, no,” Mr. Goldstein said.

So again I’ll ask..
Are Donald Trumps lawyers lying under oath In Court or telling the truth when they say “this is not a fraud case” and “we have no evidence of fraud”?

which do you say it is?
Lying or truth telling?

it can only be one or the other.

choose wisely.

Read your quote carefully. The question was about 592 specific ballots not the entire election. Some ballots are challenged not because of fraud but for other reasons.I say he was telling the truth about those 592 specific ballots. Are you trying to imply with this quote there is no charge of fraud in any way? I sure hope not.

 

[Postvieww]

Where are these cases are filed? What courts? What are the party names? Do you know the judges they are before?

The video tells you where this is filed. Sorry I don’t have time to do your homework for you.

 

[Archivist]

Read your quote carefully. The question was about 592 specific ballots not the entire election. Some ballots are challenged not because of fraud but for other reasons.I say he was telling the truth about those 592 specific ballots. Are you trying to imply with this quote there is no charge of fraud in any way? I sure hope not.

I don’t think that anyone has said that their was absolutely no fraud. We had a case in West Virginia—a Republican mailman was changing Democratic ballots. The question is could it have changed the election.

 

[Archivist]

The video tells you where this is filed. Sorry I don’t have time to do your homework for you.

It isn’t my homework. You posted a 1 hour 40 minute video. I don’t have time to watch it. If you can’t even tell me what state and court the case was filed in then I’m going to dismiss your so-called “evidence”. If you can’t even tell me where these cases were filed, have you even watched it?

 

[Postvieww]

It isn’t my homework. You posted a 1 hour 40 minute video. I don’t have time to watch it. If you can’t even tell me what state and court the case was filed in then I’m going to dismiss your so-called “evidence”. If you can’t even tell me where these cases were filed, have you even watched it?

It’s not my evidence. Georgia and Michigan

 

[Archivist]

It’s not my evidence. Georgia and Michigan

You posted it. Thank you for letting me know what states. If you knew, why couldn’t you have done that before?

 

[Archivist]

You posted it. Thank you for letting me know what states. If you knew, why couldn’t you have done that before?

So others can keep an eye on these, the cases are King v. Whitney (District Court, E.D. Michigan) and Pearson v. Kemp (District Court, N.D. Georgia). The attorney, Sidney Powell, misspelled the Court’s name in the pleadings in the Georgia case. Not a good way to impress the court.

 

[parousia70]

This Sidney Powell?

 

[Postvieww]

So others can keep an eye on these, the cases are King v. Whitney (District Court, E.D. Michigan) and Pearson v. Kemp (District Court, N.D. Georgia). The attorney, Sidney Powell, misspelled the Court’s name in the pleadings in the Georgia case. Not a good way to impress the court.

A massive court filing under severe time constraints. I am sure you would have dotted every I and crossed every T. Typical liberal come back not addressing one issue in the filing but focused on spell checking . Oh by the way this was addressed in the video you didn’t have time for.

 

[Postvieww]

This Sidney Powell?
View attachment 289730

. Yep, that Sidney Powell. Couldn’t you post her statement as well. Old news and again you present a half truth to defend the indefensible. No response to post #546?

 

[parousia70]

Read your quote carefully. The question was about 592 specific ballots not the entire election.

Not my problem that it’s the case they brought. They didn’t bring a case of fraud against the entire election.

Some ballots are challenged not because of fraud but for other reasons.I say he was telling the truth about those 592 specific ballots.

So he was telling the truth in court that there was no fraud connected with those 592 specific ballots, while lying publicly that there was fraud connected with them. Is that your contention?

Are you trying to imply with this quote there is no charge of fraud in any way? I sure hope not.

Nobody has been charged with fraud that I know of, except that a couple Republicans who voted twice or switched Democratic registrations to Republican... certainly nothing that effected or had any bearing on the outcome of the election.

If you know of any evidence that anyone’s been charged with fraud connected to this election that resulted in flipping the outcome, please present it.

 

[Archivist]

A massive court filing under severe time constraints. I am sure you would have dotted every I and crossed every T.

One thing you learn in law school is that you always spell the name of the court and the name of the judge correctly. That is something you do no matter how rushed you were putting the pleadings together.

Typical liberal come back not addressing one issue in the filing but focused on spell checking . Oh by the way this was addressed in the video you didn’t have time for.

No, I told you before that I didn’t have time to watch your one hour 40 minute propaganda video. I posted the case names so others could watch for news reports on them. You couldn’t be bothered to do that.

 

[Isilwen]

One thing you learn in law school is that you always spell the name of the court and the name of the judge correctly.



No, I told you before that I didn’t have time to watch your one hour 40 minute propaganda video. I posted the case names so others could watch for news reports on them. You couldn’t be bothered to do that.

I'm not sure correcting spelling errors or even any type of typing error is a thing anymore on court orders. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that not lying on affidavits is a thing anymore either.


All through the 1 1/2 years that the recent child support modification against me was happening, there were many misspelled words and wrong dates, times and years that were put into the orders or paperwork. I was meticulous in my paperwork, but the paperwork from the lawyer had at least one or two errors, sometimes more per correspondence. My girlfriend's mom who was a legal assistant would continually point out how bad the correspondence or orders were and that the paralegal isn't doing her job correctly.

Also, the lying on affidavits was a thing constantly and even when I would point it out to my ex-wife's lawyer, they would repeat it again.

So, during the hearing I used it to my benefit. Her lawyer tried to shut me down, but the judge overruled her stating that because they are asking for me to pay her lawyer fees, my ex-wife's expenses needed to be explained, which there was no explanation for since they were inflated well beyond anything considered normal. In my request for information I asked for my ex-wife to disclose any businesses she had, which I knew she had one within the time frame that I asked for. She never disclosed it. So she lied on that affidavit as well.

The lawyer also tried to pull a fast one by not including my other kids in NY that I pay health insurance for per court order as credit against the new child support amount. The judge just needed to hear that it was court ordered and the lawyer was forced to include the amount I pay for them as well.

So, lying and such apparently is a thing now by my experience in court recently. The lies just need to be exposed though and a judge will do what's right as evidenced by my court case and what has been happening in the courts recently with all these frivolous lawsuits from Trump!

In case you may be wondering, I didn't have to pay her lawyer fees.

 

[A_Thinker]

What does this mean? Does this mean we are going to be a socialist country and or a communist country?

And I thought churches supported Donald Trump? I am shocked that there were churches that were for Biden.

Update: Or does love actually win like some claim?

Cities erupt in cheers, church bells ring after news of Biden's projected win

Biden is not a socialist. That is just a claim made by Republicans trying to re-elect Donald Trump. Biden is a centrist.

Some churches supported Joe Biden for president ... because he is a decent man, whose greatest hope is to solve America's current ills, ... and to put us on a path to unity and wholeness.

He wants to help make America be ... the BEST that it can be ...

 

[Postvieww]

No, I told you before that I didn’t have time to watch your one hour 40 minute propaganda video.

. This is a great example of the close mindedness at work on this thread. You don’t have time to watch. You don’t know who is speaking in the video. You don’t know the qualifications of the person speaking. You don’t know anything that was said. You don’t know any of the evidence presented in the suit that was discussed in detail. In fact you know NOTHING about the video yet you can beat your chest while shouting there is no evidence and have the gall to proclaim it is all propaganda. You are complicit in the problems this nation is currently experiencing. Shame on your indifference to what is happening here.