Message from @JD~Jordan

Discord ID: 785268429849755649


2020-12-06 22:05:34 UTC  

...

2020-12-06 22:05:57 UTC  

The federal government probably won't bring charges if it costs more to litigate than what it's worth...

2020-12-06 22:06:15 UTC  

Meaning they're probably not going to go after 300 votes

2020-12-06 22:07:31 UTC  

@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.

2020-12-06 22:07:32 UTC  

Until state election results are deemed illegal... There is 0

2020-12-06 22:07:39 UTC  

There is no mention of the "deadline changing issue" in the case docketed for 12/8.

2020-12-06 22:08:08 UTC  

I've previously conceded this point and posted something that outlines what the US department of business after in terms of voting related crimes.

2020-12-06 22:08:20 UTC  

But yeah

2020-12-06 22:08:59 UTC  

Then who knows?

2020-12-06 22:09:05 UTC  

@busillis sorry. I'm not trying to beat a Dead Horse.

2020-12-06 22:10:04 UTC  

Hard to tell..

2020-12-06 22:10:08 UTC  

Joke

2020-12-06 22:10:13 UTC  

Ing

2020-12-06 22:10:24 UTC  

😂

2020-12-06 22:11:44 UTC  

@busillis. Maybe someone else learned something by our exchanged....lol

2020-12-06 22:12:10 UTC  

I'm learning.

2020-12-06 22:13:23 UTC  

@busillis we all are. It's a never ending Journey if we keep an Open Mind.

2020-12-06 22:14:13 UTC  

Are you referring to the Compromise Order?

2020-12-06 22:14:58 UTC  

Settlement Agreement?

2020-12-06 22:16:06 UTC  

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.

2020-12-06 22:16:23 UTC  

Yeah... Settlement Agreement/ Compromise Order... the one in GA

2020-12-06 22:16:59 UTC  

You literally just described a breach of the separation of powers.

2020-12-06 22:17:12 UTC  

Not at all

2020-12-06 22:17:29 UTC  

The IRS for example makes up gazzillions of rules and guidelines...

2020-12-06 22:17:43 UTC  

Its the exact same logic here...

2020-12-06 22:18:41 UTC  

@JD~Jordan the IRS is one of the most revered institutions in the United States.

2020-12-06 22:18:54 UTC  

@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.

2020-12-06 22:18:54 UTC  

Right behind the FBI

2020-12-06 22:19:08 UTC  

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

2020-12-06 22:20:41 UTC  

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.

2020-12-06 22:21:03 UTC  

Ouch that GA kraken takedown was brutal

2020-12-06 22:21:27 UTC  

What are you referring to ?

2020-12-06 22:22:10 UTC  

@JD~Jordan that's what we just got finished speculating... States can do what they will..

2020-12-06 22:22:23 UTC  

@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.

2020-12-06 22:22:25 UTC  

It's a motion to question the expertise and validity of the "experts" building the conspiracy

2020-12-06 22:22:29 UTC  

We're talking about act 77 as stated numerous times.

2020-12-06 22:22:54 UTC  

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?

2020-12-06 22:22:56 UTC  

Just because it wasn't legal in the state???

2020-12-06 22:23:03 UTC  

@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

2020-12-06 22:23:15 UTC  

> talking about act77.