Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official

 

From the US Supreme Court.

Dec 07 2020 Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.
Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Dec 07 2020 Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main Document
Dec 07 2020 Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceOther
Dec 08 2020 Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

From 

STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF
GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF
WISCONSIN

“MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STAY”

“CONCLUSION
This Court should first administratively stay or
temporarily restrain the Defendant States from
voting in the electoral college until further order of
this Court and then issue a preliminary injunction or
stay against their doing so until the conclusion of this
case on the merits. Alternatively, the Court should
reach the merits, vacate the Defendant States’ elector
certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election
results, and remand to the Defendant States’
legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint
electors.
December 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
Ken Paxton*
Attorney General of Texas”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains.

 

Landry: Louisiana Is Joining Texas’ 2020 Election Lawsuit

“Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.

Weeks ago, on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana, my office joined many other states in filing a legal brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Justices to look into the conduct of the election in Pennsylvania where their state court ignored the U.S. Constitution in regard to the conduct of the election. The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, states plainly: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …” The power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state. In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules. These actions appear to be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court can ultimately decide cases of real controversy among the states under our Constitution. That is why the Justices should hear and decide the case which we have joined representing the citizens of Louisiana.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court should consider the most recent Texas motion, which contains some of the same arguments.

Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.”

https://thehayride.com/2020/12/landry-louisiana-is-joining-texas-2020-election-lawsuit/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

4 responses to “Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

  1. “The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis

  2. “In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University.

    According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion. Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). Stop and think about that. Given President Trump’s massive early lead on election night, the odds — according to Dr. Cicchetti — that Biden came from behind and beat Trump in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are so unlikely that it’s next to impossible.”

  3. fhl…..
    ……….YES, such a likelihood is NEXT to impossible. This reasoning is parallel with my own. The ONLY way Joe Malarkey campaign could overcome such a massive lead would have been by massive cheating. For the difference between the votes to have actually come from walk in voters is impossible given the elapsed time. The cheating had to come from PHONY MAIL IN VOTES. THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE!!!!!!

  4. AND NOW,
    ……….we are witnessing ANOTHER FEINSTEIN Chinese sort of story. This time it involves the SLIMY LITTLE DEMOCRATIC PUNK Eric Swalwell. His position in government goes DIRECTLY to Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz IMPORTANT. (Pelosi). There is now a screaming necessity to eject him from his present position on the select oversight committee on which he serves. His position allows him access to highly classified information. He has fractured his status by associating with a KNOWN CHINESE (whore) double AGENT……BYE BYE Eric!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s