No fraud huh?

[ThatOwlWoman]

I went through this once. They dragged my kids and my wife into the battle, someone actually posted the name of the Elementary school my kid was attending and my address. They got my information from a mod. Shared it with all the lunatics. You just never know. Don't tell people anything. Sometimes just sharing a little personal anecdote sends them to the google machine trying to find you. I actually had a guy who claimed he had contacts at the FBI and knew for a fact I was being investigated for terrorism. If anyone gets mine here, I am gone in two minutes.

What did you do about your children? Did you have to put them in a different school? Gods, your wife must have been freaked out.

There are some scary ppl out there, including on this very forum. Toxic called me "Sara" for a long time, thinking that was my real first name. (I used my first initial and last name on Amazon for my reviews and comments.) Through a mutual Facebook friend, she discovered my real first name and shared it publicly. She also created socks using variations of my first and last name. I'm not special; she did this with several other women on that site as well. As a result we were targeted by that creepy Nazi ex-con who found our FB pages through Toxic. Fortunately, like all bullies, he was a coward. Just being contacted and warned by the police put an instant end to his stalking and threats. Toxic got banned for her troubles. It was long ago. It's amusing though now to watch her play it as though SHE was the totally innocent victim of me and the gods only know who else.

 

[Micawber]

“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Barr the Trump whore traitor

The National Council on Election Integrity, a bipartisan group, said there was “absolutely no basis” for Trump’s claims.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325515244924530694

, noting that “it’s important for us to recognize that the world is watching.”

Judge Brann likens the Trump campaign’s shoddily constructed argument to “Frankenstein’s monster”

1. “Although this case was initiated less than two weeks ago, it has already developed its own tortured procedural history.”
When the judge describes your case as having a “tortured procedural history,” things usually aren’t going well.
2. “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.”
The upshot in the case at hand was that two voters, one from Lancaster County and one from Fayette County, had their mail-in ballots canceled because they failed to properly fill them out. Pennsylvania secretary of state Kathy Boockvar had issued guidance to all of the counties across the state stipulating that they had the option of informing voters of faulty ballots and allowing them to “cure” the ballots in advance of Election Day. Philadelphia followed that guidance; other counties, including Lancaster and Fayette, didn’t. The suit, then, was based on the idea that voters whose counties declined to allow “curing” were discriminated against under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. You can tell from the quote above what Judge Brann thought of that argument.
3. “Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote.”
Set aside for a moment whether Boockvar’s guidance actually violated the Constitution. Another important aspect of a lawsuit is whether you have standing to sue in the first place. To have standing, you need to be asking the court for appropriate redress. But that’s not what the Trump campaign was doing; instead, it sought to cancel millions of other votes that had nothing to do with the two plaintiffs. What’s more, Brann notes in his opinion that the lawsuit names secretary of state Boockvar as the principal defendant even though she issued the guidance that would have allowed the two plaintiffs to fix their ballots. It was Lancaster and Fayette counties that prevented that from happening, not Boockvar.
In other words: Brann concludes that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue in federal court in the first place; and even if they did, their argument was so bad that he likened it to Frankenstein.
4. “Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.”
This gets to the point of why what happened to the two plaintiffs doesn’t violate the equal protection clause. It is such a blindingly obvious claim that it should go without saying. Unfortunately, here we are. It had to be said, and good on Brann for saying it.
5. “Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works.”
Another sign your lawsuit isn’t going well: when a judge says of your argument, “This is simply not how the Constitution works.”

6. “The Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners — from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. … One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020...ication-pennsylvania-trump-lawsuit-dismissed/

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Judge Brann likens the Trump campaign’s shoddily constructed argument to “Frankenstein’s monster”

I loved his language in that decision.

Are these not the very same (R)s who, for years now, have insisted that no one be allowed to vote unless they have the proper photo ID and documentation? Would this same reasoning not hold true for a voter who failed to follow instructions and had his ballot spoiled because of it? Isn't it the voter's responsibility to make sure that he verifies that his vote was received and verified, and if not, ask for a chance to repair it before the cut-off date? What happened to that personal responsibility thing?

 

[Phantasmal]

“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Barr the Trump whore traitor

The National Council on Election Integrity, a bipartisan group, said there was “absolutely no basis” for Trump’s claims.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325515244924530694

, noting that “it’s important for us to recognize that the world is watching.”

Judge Brann likens the Trump campaign’s shoddily constructed argument to “Frankenstein’s monster”

1. “Although this case was initiated less than two weeks ago, it has already developed its own tortured procedural history.”
When the judge describes your case as having a “tortured procedural history,” things usually aren’t going well.
2. “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.”
The upshot in the case at hand was that two voters, one from Lancaster County and one from Fayette County, had their mail-in ballots canceled because they failed to properly fill them out. Pennsylvania secretary of state Kathy Boockvar had issued guidance to all of the counties across the state stipulating that they had the option of informing voters of faulty ballots and allowing them to “cure” the ballots in advance of Election Day. Philadelphia followed that guidance; other counties, including Lancaster and Fayette, didn’t. The suit, then, was based on the idea that voters whose counties declined to allow “curing” were discriminated against under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. You can tell from the quote above what Judge Brann thought of that argument.
3. “Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote.”
Set aside for a moment whether Boockvar’s guidance actually violated the Constitution. Another important aspect of a lawsuit is whether you have standing to sue in the first place. To have standing, you need to be asking the court for appropriate redress. But that’s not what the Trump campaign was doing; instead, it sought to cancel millions of other votes that had nothing to do with the two plaintiffs. What’s more, Brann notes in his opinion that the lawsuit names secretary of state Boockvar as the principal defendant even though she issued the guidance that would have allowed the two plaintiffs to fix their ballots. It was Lancaster and Fayette counties that prevented that from happening, not Boockvar.
In other words: Brann concludes that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue in federal court in the first place; and even if they did, their argument was so bad that he likened it to Frankenstein.
4. “Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.”
This gets to the point of why what happened to the two plaintiffs doesn’t violate the equal protection clause. It is such a blindingly obvious claim that it should go without saying. Unfortunately, here we are. It had to be said, and good on Brann for saying it.
5. “Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works.”
Another sign your lawsuit isn’t going well: when a judge says of your argument, “This is simply not how the Constitution works.”

6. “The Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners — from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. … One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020...ication-pennsylvania-trump-lawsuit-dismissed/

I like that comparison.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He has stated that he is a "chemist." 1) In the UK, a chemist is a druggist, pharmacist, or pharmacy tech. 2) My father was a chemist, yet he would have never claimed to have any special expertise in any other field of science. My oldest son and my husband are also sci-guys: engineers. Once again, they would never claim to have any expertise in any other branch of engineering other than their own.

But the #1 reason why we know Tom is not a scientist? Because scientists formulate hypotheses, then collect data seeking to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. They then share results with other men/women in the field who then attempt to either validate or invalidate the conclusions reached. Tom comes up with a preconceived bias, then scours the web for discredited scientists and non-scientists to confirm his bias, then insists that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

It seems more logical that Tom meant he turned poppies into opium. It's pretty common in Thailand. Smuggling and dope dealing is a common form of "fast money".

 

[Concart]

What did you do about your children? Did you have to put them in a different school? Gods, your wife must have been freaked out.

There are some scary ppl out there, including on this very forum. Toxic called me "Sara" for a long time, thinking that was my real first name. (I used my first initial and last name on Amazon for my reviews and comments.) Through a mutual Facebook friend, she discovered my real first name and shared it publicly. She also created socks using variations of my first and last name. I'm not special; she did this with several other women on that site as well. As a result we were targeted by that creepy Nazi ex-con who found our FB pages through Toxic. Fortunately, like all bullies, he was a coward. Just being contacted and warned by the police put an instant end to his stalking and threats. Toxic got banned for her troubles. It was long ago. It's amusing though now to watch her play it as though SHE was the totally innocent victim of me and the gods only know who else.

This was in the pre-Obama days, but the same nutter types were out there. I don't want to say too much, at least one person on this board would remember the incidents, fortunately he's one of the good guys. Suffice it to say I was way smarter than the rubes that were playing games, and put an end to things pretty quickly. Bringing in kids is totally crossing the line. But bottom line, nothing is worth that. I had a chat with a neighbor who put out a Biden sign (our neighborhood is TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP). I asked them if they were concerned for their safety. Incredibly, it was a young couple and they hadn't even given it a thought. For the first time, I felt like people were so nuts it wasn't worth putting up a sign. I really am concerned that when this thing finally ends and they realize Trump has really lost, they are going to lose it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We know. You have made a career out of trying to get ppl banned. That's why the mods don't listen to your crying anymore. It's also why the ppl you have repeatedly narked out here, are still here. Amazing!

Here's your meme, my dear. You can put it in the folder with the photos you "borrowed" from my FB, and Lisa E.'s too.

ROFLMAO!

IMHO, most cyberstalkers are just very, very lonely people. Loneliness + Alcoholism + Liberal state welfare checks = a lot of cyberstalking.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I went through this once. They dragged my kids and my wife into the battle, someone actually posted the name of the Elementary school my kid was attending and my address. They got my information from a mod. Shared it with all the lunatics. You just never know. Don't tell people anything. Sometimes just sharing a little personal anecdote sends them to the google machine trying to find you. I actually had a guy who claimed he had contacts at the FBI and knew for a fact I was being investigated for terrorism. If anyone gets mine here, I am gone in two minutes.

A mod here or another forum? What kind of low-life douchebag would do such a thing? Is there a police report? That's usually the best way to handle such actions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mason seldom drinks. He's a natural talent. lol

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Concart]

A mod here or another forum? What kind of low-life douchebag would do such a thing? Is there a police report? That's usually the best way to handle such actions.

Another forum a long time ago. But yeah, it was a total low life thing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Excellent venn diagram!

 

[Nordberg]

Sidney proved there was fraud, naming Edison county Michigan as a great example. Except there is no Edison county. How incompetent and sloppy are these legal geniuses? Real lawyers have refused to work in this Trumpian scam. Besides, he cheats his lawyers. He cheats everyone.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Another forum a long time ago. But yeah, it was a total low life thing.

I was once sued for defamation. All I had to do was lie, apologize and lie again by blaming someone else. The court case made me famous in my circles but was the most expensive "Fuck you!" I ever gave in my life. The douchebag lost and within a few months he transferred to another hub.

 

[TOP]

All you need to do is reply to one. If EE isn't willing, I'm good with that. Pick someone both of us trust to be honest. Chief Gardner, Sailor or SYT are good by me. I'll see the name in your reply. Heck, if you want, reply to all three. I have nothing to hide, ma'm.

Why would another person be involved? Quick question...did you use the info you got to look up my teaching credentials?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why would another person be involved? Quick question...did you use the info you got to look up my teaching credentials?

Less than 22 hours to go, TOP. The ball is in your court.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

TOP, where did you go? The 24 hour thing was just in case you'd logged off. Obviously you are back, so where are these three PMs you are yapping about? How hard can it be to reply to a PM?

 

[TOP]

Less than 22 hours to go, TOP. The ball is in your court.

Answer my question, please...
Time is no problem....The ball is in my court

 

[TOP]

TOP, where did you go? The 24 hour thing was just in case you'd logged off. Obviously you are back, so where are these three PMs you are yapping about? How hard can it be to reply to a PM?

I'm busy...but I'm back....
Did you use the info you were sent to look up my credentials? Yes or No?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Answer my question, please...
Time is no problem....The ball is in my court

Please post to all when you've replied. Yes, the ball is in your court.

If that really happened, it's not in my records. I don't recall ever PM'ing you at all, but if what you say is true, then you can simply reply to this supposed PM thus proving to me that you are right and I am wrong. If no PM shows up in my mailbox within 24 hours, you will have confirmed to me you are a liar.

OTOH, if you do have a PM, include EE in your reply. I will publicly admit error and post an apology on this thread, or whatever thread you like, for forgetting the PM. EE will know the answer as well as you or I within the next 24 hours, ma'm.

There's three....You PM'd me first....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm busy...but I'm back....
Did you use the info you were sent to look up my credentials? Yes or No?

In the time it took you to post that reply, you could have replied to one of these mysterious PMs you claim exist. Why didn't you just reply to the PM?

Is it because you are lying again? Is it because nearly everything TOW has said about you is true and nearly everything you've posted is a big, fat lie?