Message from @JD~Jordan
Discord ID: 785268429849755649
...
The federal government probably won't bring charges if it costs more to litigate than what it's worth...
Meaning they're probably not going to go after 300 votes
@busillis. Example. I mailed my Ballot without signing by mistake. The Elections Clerk accepted it and counted it as a Vote in violation of State Law. The Clerk violated the State Law. The US Mail was not an Element of the Crime/Violation.
Until state election results are deemed illegal... There is 0
There is no mention of the "deadline changing issue" in the case docketed for 12/8.
I've previously conceded this point and posted something that outlines what the US department of business after in terms of voting related crimes.
But yeah
Then who knows?
@busillis sorry. I'm not trying to beat a Dead Horse.
Hard to tell..
Joke
Ing
😂
@busillis. Maybe someone else learned something by our exchanged....lol
I'm learning.
@busillis we all are. It's a never ending Journey if we keep an Open Mind.
Are you referring to the Compromise Order?
Settlement Agreement?
I think lots of people are being misinformed on that issue. I have read the compromise. It didnt change the law... It only changed a few rules and guidelines (how the law was implemented) which are things often set aside for the agency or office that has to carry out that law can address without legislative review.
You literally just described a breach of the separation of powers.
Not at all
The IRS for example makes up gazzillions of rules and guidelines...
Its the exact same logic here...
@JD~Jordan the IRS is one of the most revered institutions in the United States.
@JD~Jordan the Executive Branch can only preform the authority that is established by Statue of the Legislation. I believe the question is they exceed their Authority.
Right behind the FBI
Here is a copy of the Settlement Agreement/Compromise Order.... Take a moment to read it. It doesn't modify the underlying law.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf
Yes that is the question.... and the answer is "No, they didn't". Everything contained in that order was something the Sec of State office could legally do... The attorney for the GOP in GA was a party to that Settlement Agreement... and it was approved and entered by a court.
Ouch that GA kraken takedown was brutal
What are you referring to ?
@JD~Jordan that's what we just got finished speculating... States can do what they will..
@JD~Jordan. They exceeded the Legislation is the question. Not the Form rather the objective. Not in their overview to change the Objective. That is the Legal Question.
It's a motion to question the expertise and validity of the "experts" building the conspiracy
We're talking about act 77 as stated numerous times.
Yeah... that's what's weird about this one and why I think the PA SC may have lazily used the Latches justification. I think the core of the issue is that the PA Constitution outlines specific reasons that people can vote absentee. This is the current PA constitution section that outlines absentee voting:
*"Absentee Voting
Section 14
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside."*
There is a (b), but it just defines municipality in this context.
So, the question seems to be... Does this mean that these are the only reasons to allow Absentee ballots under the constitution and any changes require an amendment? Or... Do these represent the minimum, guaranteed reasons for allowing absentee voting, but is does not preclude the legislature from enacting laws to extend mail-in voting as they did in Act 77, but if they chose to exclude any of these reasons, it would require an amendment?
Just because it wasn't legal in the state???
@Maw and @William Dinan I have not read this article yet but I was going to the other day... I imagine it will anser some your questions
https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-elections-voter-registration-40bb602e6f0facf8eecc331e83ab36e0
> talking about act77.