Nevada State Court Judge Dismisses Election Challenge
While the Judge said he considered the totality of the evidence, he rejected “hearsay” affidavits as evidence. Since so much of the proof was through a written record, this essentially gutted the case.
On December 3, 2012, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada First Judicial District Court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss the challenge to the election results brought by Trump electors, Law v. Whitmer.
The hearing was not an evidentiary hearing, but a motion to dismiss that complaint as being inadequate. But unlike a normal case, apparently a lot of evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts had been submitted to the court, so it was more than a legal argument.
I watched much, but not all, of the argument as it happened:
The Judge just issued his decision, and dismissed the case. You can read it here.
The parties were directed at the end of the December 3 argument to submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 10 a.m. this morning. I’ve not seen those documents, but when a court asks litigants to do that, it’s understood that the court is likely to do some serious cutting and pasting from those proposals into a decision. So some portion of the judge’s decision likely adopts proposed findings from one of the parties (given the result, likely the party opposing the contest).
I’ll provide only brief excerpts. Note, the formatting is really messed up because the line numbers to the left are in the court original – it makes it somewhat hard to read and screws up the alignment, with the end of some sentences wrapping to the next line. But would take too long to remove and reformat. I’m going to put my commentary in larger font.
First, the Court summarized the prior proceedings, including the evidence submitted to the court on December 2:
21. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
22 On November 17, 2020, Contestants- Republican Party presidential elector candidates-
23 filed a statement of contest challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election in Nevada,
24 seeking an order from this Court either declaring President Donald Trump the winner in Nevada
25 and certifying Contestants as the State’s duly elected presidential electors, or holding that
26 President-elect Joe Biden’ s victory “be declared null and void” and that the November 3 election
27 “be annulled and that no candidate for elector for the office of President of the United States of
1 America be certified from the State of Nevada.” Statement of Contest of the Nov. 3, 2020
2 Presidential Election 20. In orders dated November 19 and 24, 2020, this Court expanded the
3 depositions available to each party from 10 to 15 and shortened the time for notice from seven
4 days to 48 hours. The parties submitted their evidence to the Court on Wednesday, December 2,
5 2020. Defendants submitted the testimony by deposition of four witnesses and Contestants
6 submitted the testimony by deposition of eight witnesses along with numerous declarations,
7 affidavits, and other documents. The Court held a hearing on December 3, 2020.
The court then went through how the “Agilis” signature matching machines and Dominion in-person voting machines operated, finding proper testing and no irregularity in operation.
6 B. Certification and Auditing
7 33. These voting systems are subject to extensive testing and certification before each
8 election and are audited after each election. Thorley Dep. 35:12-39:23; Gloria Dep. 31 :3-32:7,
9 33:9-21.
IO 34. For example, the electronic voting systems used by Clark County were certified by
11 the federal government when they were first brought on the market, as well as any time a hardware
12 or software component is upgraded. This certification is done by a voting system test laboratory.
13 Thorley Dep. 36:19-37:12.
14 35. The electronic voting machines are also tested and certified by the Secretary, who
15 contracts with the Nevada Gaming Control Board for this certification. Thorley Dep. 37: 17-38:21.
16 36. Clark County’s electronic voting machines were last inspected by the Gaming
17 Control Board in December 2019 and certified by the Secretary shortly thereafter. Thorley Dep.
18 39:6-15; GloriaDep. 31 :3-32:7.
19 3 7. The voting machines are also audited against a paper trail that is generated, as
20 discussed above, when voters make their selections. A Clark County voting machine will not
21 operate unless it is connected to a printer (the VVPAT), which creates a paper record that voters
22 can review. Thorley Dep. 28:11-29:6; Gloria Dep. 28:13-29:5.
23 38. After each election, Clark County, like Nevada’s other counties, conducts a random
24 audit of its voting machines. Specifically, it compares the paper trail created by the printer against
25 the results recorded by the voting machine to ensure they match. Thorley Dep. 35: 12-36: 12; Gloria
26 Dep. 33:9-21.
1 39. If there are any issues with or discrepancies in the data recorded by Clark’s voting
2 machines, or issues with the accuracy of the paper trail created by the printers, then they would
3 appear in this audit; indeed, that is what the audit is designed to catch. Thorley Dep. 36:8-12.
4 40. Clark County conducted this audit following the November election and there were
5 no discrepancies between the paper audit trail created by the printer and the data from the voting
6 machine. Gloria Dep. 33:9-21.
The court then went through prior litigations in which such machines were challenged unsuccessfully. The court then considered the totality of the evidence, even though affidavits technically were not admissible:
26 56. Contestants did not issue their first deposition notices until Friday, November 27,
27 2020.
1 57. Much of Contestants’ evidence consists of non-deposition evidence in the form of
2 witness declarations. These declarations fall outside the scope of the contest statute, which
3 provides that election contests “shall be tried and submitted so far as may be possible upon
4 depositions and written or oral argument as the court may order.” NRS 293.415. The reason for
5 this is to allow for the cross-examination of the deponent under oath.
6 58. These declarations also constitute hearsay, as they are out-of-court statements
7 offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted. See NRS 51.035, 51.065; Cramer v.
8 State, 126 Nev. 388,392,240 P.3d 8, 11 (2010) (“An affidavit is generally inadmissible hearsay.”).
9 Most of these declarations were self-serving statements oflittle or no evidentiary value.
10 59. The Court nonetheless considers the totality of the evidence provided by
11 Contestants in reaching and ruling upon the merits of their claims.
The court then went through each of the claims, such as voter fraud rated for mail-in ballots, provisional ballots, signature mismatch, overcounting, inelibigle voters and double voting, and others, and rejected each as unsupported by credible, admissible evidence. Here’s the discussion of ineligible voters and double voting:
9 E. Ineligible Voters and Double Voting
10 92. Contestants allege that voters were sent and cast multiple ballots and otherwise
11 double voted, that non-Nevada residents cast ballots and those ballots were counted, and that
12 numerous persons arrived to vote in-person on election day only to find out that a mail ballots was
13 cast in their name already.
14 93. The record does not support a finding that any Nevada voter voted twice. See Doe
15 4 Dep. 10:6-13 (testifying that two voters he checked in were not allowed to vote because of record
16 that they already voted).
17 94. The record does not support a finding that any individuals were sent and cast
18 multiple mail ballots. Cf Negrete Deel. (LAW 001626) (hearsay declaration alleging that she
19 received two ballots, one each for her married and maiden names, but not that she or anyone else
20 cast multiple votes); Finley Deel. (LAW 004944) (hearsay declaration alleging that voter received
21 two ballots, but providing no evidence that ballot was cast or counted).
22 95. The record does not support a finding that numerous voters arrived to vote at their
23 respective polling places only to be informed that a mail ballot had already been received on their
24 behalf when, in fact, the voter had not submitted a mail ballot. Cf Doe 3 Dep. 36:18-25, 37:1-18
25 (testifying that single unidentified man arrived at her polling place and claimed that he did not cast
26 mail ballot allegedly received by election officials,, but not providing any corroborating evidence);
1 Doe 4 Dep. 10:6-13 (testifying that two voters he checked in were not allowed to vote because of
2 record that they already voted, but not demonstrating whether these voters had in fact cast ballots).
3 96. The record does not support a finding that election officials counted mail ballots
4 from voters who also voted in other states. Cj Doe 2 Dep. 56: 15-25 (testifying that she saw ballots
5 arrive from out of state but admitting that she did not know whether they were lawfully cast); Doe
6 3 Dep. 12:8-16 (testifying that she was asked to accept a voter’s California identification with
7 Nevada address and was instructed to give them a provisional ballot, but not that voter had also
8 voted in California).
9 97. The record does not support a finding that election officials counted ballots from
10 voters who did not meet Nevada residency requirements. Cj Doe 2 Dep. 56:15-25 (testifying that
11 voters were allowed to cast ballots without presenting identification, but not that voters did not
12 meet residency requirements); Doe 4 Dep. 10:14–11:12, 40:7-23 (testifying to belief that
13 individuals with out-of-state identification were allowed to vote, but admitting that he did not know
14 if these individuals voted after they were directed to team leaders); Linda Smith Deel. (LAW
15 004650) (hearsay declaration describing voters arriving with out-of-state license plates, but not
16 claiming that these voters were ineligible to vote in Nevada);see Thorley Dep. 47:1-48:12
17 (testifying that Nevada directs the USPS not to forward ballots and that ballots are mailed as
18 marketing mail, which does not include mail forwarding, a feature that requires additional
19 payment).
As can be seen above, and throughout the decision, while the Judge said he considered the totality of the evidence, he rejected “hearsay” affidavits as evidence. Since so much of the proof was through a written record, this essentially gutted the case.
The Judge also rejected the expert testimony offered by the contestants:
120. As reflected herein, the Court finds that the expert testimony provided by
26 Contestants was of little to no value. The Court did not exclude consideration of this evidence,
27 which it could have, but gave it very little weight.
The court then went through the burdens of proof, and found that the contestants didn’t meet the burden of demonstrating anything that would justify a finding of impropriety. This sentence is being widely quoted in news coverage and on social media:
19 79. Based on this testimony, the Court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence
20 that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud. Herron Dep. 56:19-57:21.
In the end, the Contestants faced an insurmountable obstacle – the calendar. They relied upon documentary evidence and affidavits that the court dismissed as hearsay, but there would not have been time to bring all that evidence in through witnesses. It would be multi-month trial. It’s a problem I’ve pointed out faced by the litigants and attorneys in all of the cases.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Lock and Load, Patriots. This is about to turn HOT.
Sadly, some of my own family are going to be on the wrong side. And considering it’s going to be a “target rich environment”, my family is gonna get a lot smaller fairly soon.
If Biden and Harris are ‘sworn in’, half the nation won’t consider them legitimate.
As of now. we don’t even consider the FBI or CIA legitimate.
Let’s start discussions of breaking the nation into separate pieces, where we’ll all be happier (we’ll be the happiest of all) and we can avoid the massive bloodshed that will result from Biden and Harris ‘taking office.’
TFR, if it can be done peacefully, I’m all for it. I’m concerned that the “other side” won’t let it be peaceful. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll do what needs to be done if it comes to that, I just hope it doesn’t come to that. If you understand what I mean.
Of course they wouldn’t want us to take us – our highly functioning middle class, and they’ll put up a fuss.
But remember: the limo libs, the hollywood idiots, the ‘academia’, etc – they won’t be willing to abandon their cushy positions to shoot it out in the streets. Besides, they’ll likely see us gone as a positive.
Start the talks.
You’ll be happy for about a year and a half, until the cancer starts invading your new borders. Then what are you going to do, withdraw further?
No, not at all.
First, if we secede, we’ll be moving into a nation with a new Constitution: amended to work out all the kinks the left has exploited.
The First Amendment would be absolute, but we could have laws against a communist party, etc. Our Second Amendment would be absolute. Then call for strict, immigration laws and strict remedies: like prison work camps for anyone violating it.(In our new laws, prisoners would be required to work.) After one’s prison term for violating our borders, they’d be placed back over the border.
Now, imagine new laws making government absolutely transparent? Making term limits so there are no lifetime hacks in public office? Making tax laws simple? Making the death penalty actually enforceable upon DNA evidence? Making public corruption a capital crime? Making stranger rape a capital crime? Making censorship a felony – imposed all the way up to the top of the organization censoring it? Making a false criminal report a felony? Making prison mandatory upon felony convictions?
This sounds draconian, but remember the above, re the First and Second Amendments.
We’re return to
Communists: You have no evidence of voting fraud!
Lawyers: Here are affidavits of eyewitness testimony.
Judge: Affidavits from eyewitnesses = hearsay. The Communists say it didn’t happen, and that their testimony is more pleasing to me than your eyewitnesses. Case dismissed.
I doubt this judge would find any evidence acceptable. I wonder if he has any connection with Harry Reid.
Or connection to Soros.
He didn’t even have time to read all the evidence.
He made the decision based on what the deep state told him to make
He is an Obama ‘judge’. No need to ask the deep state for instructions.
Worse, he’s a Dingey Harry judge. All branches of government in NV, state and federal, are part of Dingey Harry’s mob.
It makes his job easier if he can just find an excuse to throw out all the evidence.
Ruling the affidavits as hearsay is, frankly, laughable. Particularly under the procedural posture.
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
Primary tabs
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
(C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out:
(i) the office’s activities;
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and
(B) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.
(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:
(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that
(i) the record or statement does not exist; or
(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and
(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.
(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:
(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;
(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and
(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.
(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.
(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:
(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;
(B) the record is kept in a public office; and
(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.
(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.
(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.
(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.
(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.
(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and
(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.
The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:
(A) was essential to the judgment; and
(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.
Ignoring the law is very easy when you’re a democrat hack.
Thank William Barr for making the impunity of such acts PERMANENT.
Sounds like the kind of decision that could easily be corrected (eventually) on appeal
Big tech is obscuring the judge’s party affiliation, but he was originally appointed by a democrat.
If it walks like a duck….
Interesting tactic. Throw out the evidence then declare that there’s no evidence.
But then, there was never any possibility of fixing this broken election through the courts. This is just part of the process.
That’s part of what scares me. We are systematically being shown how lowly and corrupt every single government institution has become. The DoJ is worthless. The state courts are worthless. Many state officers are worthless. Is part of this process to realize the rest are worthless, as well?
Slowly, slowly, people are waking up and realizing the predicament we find ourselves in. I wonder how many people will to recognize the hard truth and stay awake. How many will choose to believe the comfortable lie? What happens if enough of us wake up?
There is no way to prove it, but I believe the evidence shows Trump easily won the election. But in January the Harris regime is likely to seize power. This is the slowest coup in history, and we are powerless to stop it.
Where would the opposition to the coming Communist regime come from? The Republican Party? The happiest people in America – happier that the Communists! – is the GOPe. Not only did they get rid of Trump (albeit by cheating), but they are convinced that they will roar back into power in 2022 and beyond. They are convinced the Communists will overplay their hand and give a Jeb Bush-type lefty Republican an opening to win the White House.
The GOPe is way too stupid and arrogant to realize it, but their Thermidor is about to arrive. Only it won’t be a turn away from the Robespierre-like Harris regime, but the elimination of the lefty GOPe. The thousand of fraudulent ballots in 2018 that delivered the House to the Communists turn into hundreds of thousands of ballots that made Harris President in 2020. In 2022 and beyond the fraud will be vastly worse, and I doubt any Republican seat can be considered safe.
We are systematically being shown how lowly and corrupt every single government institution has become.
I sometimes wonder if that is not the entire purpose of this process. Trump and his team have to know how deep the corruption goes, they’ve seen the crap Sullivan pulled. Maybe this is part of the plan – either they win in court, or they force the Deep State to show its hand.
Judges are forced to at least acknowledge an attempt to present evidence before denying there is evidence.
The Leftwing media, OTOH, doesn’t need to go through that charade. They simply and authoritatively declare there is no evidence.
And that includes the Murdoch’s Fox ‘We Did It!’ News — may it die a slow, financially painful, corporate traitor’s death.
am not a lawyer, but how can sworn affidavits of first-person, eyewitness observations be considered hearsay?
isn’t that ” reversible error? “
I’m not a lawyer either, but I have the same question for the others here who are.
“If you want your Republic, you can keep your Republic”. Isn’t what these judges are saying? Even the Atlanta video is now said to be nothing, SOP according to the election officials. 70+ million true voters… way more than that I wager… are just left with a participation award to an already “settled” election.
This would be time for Operation Sampson if in Israel.
It would be pure poetry in motion to beat those asses to death with the jawbone of an ass.
The Sampson Option is a lot more devastating than that.
It was an easy prediction that the judges would be profiles in putty.
Gotta protect those pensions, donchaknow?
What happened here is that the judge essentially dismissed all of the evidence presented by the Trump Campaign and relied entirely upon the evidence supplied by a report, on election fraud rates, which an “expert” for the state presented which was based upon data from elections not associated with the 2020 Presidential election. This is saying that an armed robbery could not have occurred at a given time and place because it had never happened there before, even though several eye witnesses testified that it did, in fact, happen as claimed. In other words, the fix was in.
Now, to be fair this was a hearing on a motion to dismiss a request that certification of the results be withheld or the current results reversed. So, the bar for granting the motion to dismiss is rather low. However, in a case of this magnitude, the judge could have ruled that the case could go forward or have continued the hearing after giving the Trump litigants time to produce witnesses for deposition or cross examination. It is interesting that this was not done, given the abbreviated time frame in which the litigants had to operate.
But, as the clock ticks on more and more evidence of fraud will surface. If it gets to the point where legal remedies are not going to be available, interested parties, some 73 million of them, may choose a more traditional remedy.
An untenable ruling on its face.
In other words all Trump is doing is trying to break all of the toys on the way out of the house.
No. Cheating traitors broke the toys. Trump is calling them out on it.
Indeed. It is ironic that Trump has been called a serial liar for the entirety of his time in office when, what he has done since his first day on the job is call out those who constantly lie, take unfair advantage of America’s good will and forgiving nature, or cheat as a routine part of their day’s work. That has been Trump’s greatest crime as President. He has stood up for our international friends, defended all nature of domestic lives and lifestyles, and asked nothing more than respect for others and the laws as written, and for those who ask the same to be heard. He has been denied this at every step, in and by; courts, investigatory agencies, “the academe,” legislative bodies, open hearings, closed hearings, international organizations, ‘experts’ of every stripe in every discipline and now, since the onset of COVID medicine men (and women) of every type. We, no one, no thing can survive living in a constant state of denial. It it simply will not work. It never has, never will, and the United Sates of America will not be the exception….regardless of what our current merry band of snickering, mocking, growling, award winning, primping, black robed high priests say. Trump and his followers have exposed them all – world wide – and cannot be forgiven it. That is his crime.
That you call what is at stake “toys” is telling. You guys’ only interest in democracy is how you can rig it. Thank you for sharing the little window into your depraved worldview, even if you did it because you are too stupid to know you were doing it. LOL!!
The constant attacks on President Trump since he started his America First campaign and through his successful America First presidency, has revealed all the global communist enemies of America.
They have made themselves gleefully known to all, their words and opinions, their positions in elite rulers club and everywhere they congregate to pontificate Orange Man Bad op-eds with like minded potentates.
They are proudly corrupt in their actions, and so the system of justice is corrupt because those responsible for maintaining standards, use their office for personal gain and self protection.
The system is fine, it is the bad actors of the political elite class and their acolytes who create the rank dysfunction.
Accept that as an American you are a minority and a victim of marxist oppression by the communist democrats of the ruling gang,
and so investigate history to
learn of victim methods suitable to the fray:
Pandemic exempted righteous riot looting, Polar bear hunting and personal jihad are proven choice methods for the oppressed to express their frustration.
“The system is fine, it is the bad actors of the political elite class and their acolytes who create the rank dysfunction.”
1) Yes. The system depends on ethical people. Marxism is designed for and depends on unethical people.
2) These unethical people fear Trump. They are desperate. They did not intend to be out in the open but their corrupt control is on the verge of collapsing. We must push it over the edge. They are enemies — both foreign and domestic.
3) We must hand freedom and liberty to our children and grandchildren. To accept (= surrender) the Biden/Harris fraud in any way is to totally fail our children and grandchildren.
In some ways, I actually sympathize with the judge even while his ruling angers me. What if he rules for the plaintiff? what is the result? He could be costing all Nevadans their elected preference. It is much easier to take the Sgt. Schultz approach and let the big boys at appeals handle it.
This whole thing has become a “let’s run out the clock” on the part of They, the Bureaucrats (and judges are just bureaucrats in black robes). By not doing his job, he is actually either disenfranchising the true voters of his state, and possibly those of the nation.
He’s a coward in a black robe.
Everybody’s looking for a performative without infelicitous conditions. A performative final say that sticks.
Another sleazy lawyer in robes; the Peter Principle survives…
These courts seem to love their Catch 22s. Whether it is standing/laches (Pennsylvania) or Your time is up/Insufficient Evidence (Nevada). Court rules, like elections, are being manipulated to achieve rigged results. There will either be meaningful relief in SCOTUS or there will be civil war.
Face it, the court system has been broken for a long time. You could get more reliable “justice” from rolling dice than you will ever get today in a world of interminable pretrial delays, multi-year trials, plea bargains, deep-pocket litlgants, the revolving door for criminals, and so on. Replacing it with a more just and effective system would probably take nothing short of a civil war.