ANOTHER Judge Rules Democrats violated election law.

[code1211]

The Democrat-Socialists law breaking as the means to their ends is getting revealed. Too late to do anything about the last election theft.

Hopefully, this might impact future elections.

Ford To Move Production Of New Vehicle Out Of Ohio To Mexico

Another solid kick to the groin off the American worker was delivered Wednesday as the United Auto Workers union informed employees via letter at the Avon Lake Ford plant in Ohio that it plans to move a major project slated for 2023 to its plant in Mexico. The letter stated that Ford is reneging...

www.wibc.com

<snip>
State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray has ruled invalid Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's guidance issued to Michigan clerks in early October
<snip>
"The presumption is found nowhere in state law," wrote Murray, an appointee of Republican former Gov. John Engler. "The mandatory presumption goes beyond the realm of mere advice and direction, and instead is a substantive directive that adds to the pertinent signature-matching standards."

 

[mrjurrs]

The Democrat-Socialists law breaking as the means to their ends is getting revealed. Too late to do anything about the last election theft.

Hopefully, this might impact future elections.

Ford To Move Production Of New Vehicle Out Of Ohio To Mexico

Another solid kick to the groin off the American worker was delivered Wednesday as the United Auto Workers union informed employees via letter at the Avon Lake Ford plant in Ohio that it plans to move a major project slated for 2023 to its plant in Mexico. The letter stated that Ford is reneging...

www.wibc.com

<snip>
State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray has ruled invalid Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's guidance issued to Michigan clerks in early October
<snip>
"The presumption is found nowhere in state law," wrote Murray, an appointee of Republican former Gov. John Engler. "The mandatory presumption goes beyond the realm of mere advice and direction, and instead is a substantive directive that adds to the pertinent signature-matching standards."

Well that source had zero to do with your OP

 

[code1211]

Well that source had zero to do with your OP

Must have had a wrong link left over from a previous post.

Here's the right one:

Michigan judge rules secretary of state violated election law by unilaterally changing absentee voting rules - Washington Examiner

A judge has ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated state law last year when she issued “guidance” on how absentee ballots should be evaluated.State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled last week that Benson, a Democrat, did not follow the proper rule-making...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[mrjurrs]

Must have had a wrong link left over from a previous post.

Here's the right one:

Michigan judge rules secretary of state violated election law by unilaterally changing absentee voting rules - Washington Examiner

A judge has ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated state law last year when she issued “guidance” on how absentee ballots should be evaluated.State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled last week that Benson, a Democrat, did not follow the proper rule-making...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Hmm. Interesting that the judge said state law was violated and that the guidance is now invalid. From the 'punishment' it sounds like a civil violation not a criminal one. I('d like to see what law was violated. Did you find that anywhere?

 

[Waddy]

I can't wait to buy Chinese cars. Half the price of domestic cars. I hope the Chinese belt and road program extends to the America's. It's all over Africa, and now Europe. In the heart of Germany, no less. We need more cheap Asian goods. And American workers need to find out they're not so special. They can't hold a candle to Asian productivity.

 

[BlueTex]

Hmm. Interesting that the judge said state law was violated and that the guidance is now invalid. From the 'punishment' it sounds like a civil violation not a criminal one. I('d like to see what law was violated. Did you find that anywhere?

The judge made no determination on the legality of the guidance, only that the procedure for issuing the guidance violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The article is a lie, not surprising for the Washington Examiner.

 

[code1211]

Hmm. Interesting that the judge said state law was violated and that the guidance is now invalid. From the 'punishment' it sounds like a civil violation not a criminal one. I('d like to see what law was violated. Did you find that anywhere?

The judge was saying that the directive given by the politician was not justified under law.

Before the direction was issued there was only ONE method available to verify the qualifications of the entity that submitted any individual mail in ballot.

The politician who issued the directive determined that this only verification method was not desirable. Also that systems needed to assure that more mail in ballots were accepted than ever before were to be implemented.

Seems similar to determining that a particular toilet will not flush properly and then deciding that thousands of people should crap there. The image is mind numbing.

When it's determined that the toilet won't flush, the solution is to stop using the toilet, not to send thousands more people to crap there than ever before.

The remedy offered by the politician in question was obviously intended to do something unrelated to honesty, integrity, fairness, logic, intelligence, good sense or good quality.

What do you suppose his goal might have been?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Hmm. Interesting that the judge said state law was violated and that the guidance is now invalid. From the 'punishment' it sounds like a civil violation not a criminal one. I('d like to see what law was violated. Did you find that anywhere?

Interesting that a right wing judge rules on a left wing SOS 4.5 months after the election. If she had tried to change the rule according to the 'rules' it would have made no significant difference in the outcome.

So, in other words, who effing cares.

 

[code1211]

Interesting that a right wing judge rules on a left wing SOS 4.5 months after the election. If she had tried to change the rule according to the 'rules' it would have made no significant difference in the outcome.

So, in other words, who effing cares.

Just a quick note.

Obama had a cutting edge technologically advance methodology for harvesting useful information to gain political advantage in elections.

Trump examined it and augmented it and won in 2016.

The Democrats used obviously illegal methods to win elections in 2020.

Do you seriously believe that the Republicans are NOT studying those methods and constructing the methods to use them?

You seem to believe that the only lying thieves in politics are Democrats. There are lying thieves among the republicans as well.

2020 will quite likely be viewed historically as the election during which American Elections became superfluous to the US President Selections.

 

[mrjurrs]

The judge made no determination on the legality of the guidance, only that the procedure for issuing the guidance violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The article is a lie, not surprising for the Washington Examiner.

Not holding my breath to hear back from the op...

 

[BlueTex]

Just a quick note.

Obama had a cutting edge technologically advance methodology for harvesting useful information to gain political advantage in elections.

Trump examined it and augmented it and won in 2016.

The Democrats used obviously illegal methods to win elections in 2020.

Do you seriously believe that the Republicans are NOT studying those methods and constructing the methods to use them?

You seem to believe that the only lying thieves in politics are Democrats. There are lying thieves among the republicans as well.

2020 will quite likely be viewed historically as the election during which American Elections became superfluous to the US President Selections.

Enlighten us on the illegal methods the democrats used to win in 2020.

 

[mrjurrs]

The judge was saying that the directive given by the politician was not justified under law.

Before the direction was issued there was only ONE method available to verify the qualifications of the entity that submitted any individual mail in ballot.

The politician who issued the directive determined that this only verification method was not desirable. Also that systems needed to assure that more mail in ballots were accepted than ever before were to be implemented.

Seems similar to determining that a particular toilet will not flush properly and then deciding that thousands of people should crap there. The image is mind numbing.

When it's determined that the toilet won't flush, the solution is to stop using the toilet, not to send thousands more people to crap there than ever before.

The remedy offered by the politician in question was obviously intended to do something unrelated to honesty, integrity, fairness, logic, intelligence, good sense or good quality.

What do you suppose his goal might have been?

There is a continuum from not justified under law, to unlawful, to against the law. Not sure of the goal, publicity?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Just a quick note.

Obama had a cutting edge technologically advance methodology for harvesting useful information to gain political advantage in elections.

Trump examined it and augmented it and won in 2016.

The Democrats used obviously illegal methods to win elections in 2020.

Do you seriously believe that the Republicans are NOT studying those methods and constructing the methods to use them?

You seem to believe that the only lying thieves in politics are Democrats. There are lying thieves among the republicans as well.

2020 will quite likely be viewed historically as the election during which American Elections became superfluous to the US President Selections.

Can you explain the illegal methods and/or provide proof of same??? We'll be standing by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[What if...?]

To

The judge was saying that the directive given by the politician was not justified under law.

Before the direction was issued there was only ONE method available to verify the qualifications of the entity that submitted any individual mail in ballot.

The politician who issued the directive determined that this only verification method was not desirable. Also that systems needed to assure that more mail in ballots were accepted than ever before were to be implemented.

Seems similar to determining that a particular toilet will not flush properly and then deciding that thousands of people should crap there. The image is mind numbing.

When it's determined that the toilet won't flush, the solution is to stop using the toilet, not to send thousands more people to crap there than ever before.

The remedy offered by the politician in question was obviously intended to do something unrelated to honesty, integrity, fairness, logic, intelligence, good sense or good quality.

What do you suppose his goal might have been?

To counter another Republican vote suppression technique? Where anything but a perfect match led to rejection, even though peoples signatures vary over time and even from time to time?

 

[Elmer Fudd]

If we want to have fairer elections, I propose getting rid of the electoral college. Then remove gerrymandering by removing districts and keep having census every 10 years to figure how many representatives a state has. Then for representatives in a state have rank choice voting. If a state has eight representatives then the top 8 make it. This may result in more than two parties which in my opinion will have many different views being represented, which could be a good thing.

 

[SMTA]

Not holding my breath to hear back from the op...

And the OP goes down in flames

 

[iguanaman]

Just a quick note.

Obama had a cutting edge technologically advance methodology for harvesting useful information to gain political advantage in elections.

Trump examined it and augmented it and won in 2016.

The Democrats used obviously illegal methods to win elections in 2020.

Do you seriously believe that the Republicans are NOT studying those methods and constructing the methods to use them?

You seem to believe that the only lying thieves in politics are Democrats. There are lying thieves among the republicans as well.

2020 will quite likely be viewed historically as the election during which American Elections became superfluous to the US President Selections.

Funny but the view most experts have on the 2020 election is that it was the most secure in history. Saying it wasn't is meaningless without evidence.

Trump’s own officials say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs

 

[iguanaman]

Can you explain the illegal methods and/or provide proof of same??? We'll be standing by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want proof? How ridiculous. Just saying there was fraud in the election was good enough got the one term mistake and it is good enough for all in his cult. It is what Putin says too about his opponents and then he puts them in jail. This is now how Republicans think it should work here.

 

[code1211]

Interesting that a right wing judge rules on a left wing SOS 4.5 months after the election. If she had tried to change the rule according to the 'rules' it would have made no significant difference in the outcome.

So, in other words, who effing cares.

Only important in upcoming elections.

Do you have any recommendations for adequate systems to assure that mail in ballots received are submitted by the still alive, human voters registered to vote?

 

[bongsaway]

Just a quick note.

Obama had a cutting edge technologically advance methodology for harvesting useful information to gain political advantage in elections.

Trump examined it and augmented it and won in 2016.

The Democrats used obviously illegal methods to win elections in 2020.

Do you seriously believe that the Republicans are NOT studying those methods and constructing the methods to use them?

You seem to believe that the only lying thieves in politics are Democrats. There are lying thieves among the republicans as well.

2020 will quite likely be viewed historically as the election during which American Elections became superfluous to the US President Selections.

What in the world are you talking about. The only real voter fraud found in the past few years has been done by republicans.

 

[code1211]

Not holding my breath to hear back from the op...

Holding your breath?

What would you like to discuss?

 

[code1211]

Enlighten us on the illegal methods the democrats used to win in 2020.

They "adjusted" voting law, UN-Constitutionally to implement methods friendly to Democrat-Socialists candidates.

Good examples are the removal of any verification process to qualify the authenticity and legality of ballots submitted in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Really no different in effect from the various shady steps taken in concert with other Jim Crow Laws to produce election outcomes desired by Democrats n the South.

This is a time honored tradition used by Democrats to gain election victories.

 

[code1211]

There is a continuum from not justified under law, to unlawful, to against the law. Not sure of the goal, publicity?

Is there a definable difference between unlawful and against the law?

Removing any and all methods to verify the authenticity and legality of submitted ballots seems to invite mischief.

 

[code1211]

Can you explain the illegal methods and/or provide proof of same??? We'll be standing by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since the methods used to check legality were removed, the point is not debatable except in theory.

It would be like counting Covid deaths with no numbers to count. You know- like China.

 

[code1211]

To
To counter another Republican vote suppression technique? Where anything but a perfect match led to rejection, even though peoples signatures vary over time and even from time to time?

What alternative measure to verify the authenticity and legality of mail-in ballots was defined and employed by the nefarious political hack that issued the directive to not check signatures?