Posted on Feb 6, 2021
Supreme Court to Consider 2020 Election Challenge Lawsuits in February Conference
606
26
11
7
7
0
Every time anyone mentions "election fraud" there is a community of deniers who scoff that there is no evidence, therefore no fraud, and point to the "failure" of all court cases. Whenever I rebut their contention stating that the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds without consideration of the evidence, they laugh at me. Well folks, it seems that he who laughs last may laugh best. I am not saying there was election fraud or that the evidence is compelling. I have merely stated that many (maybe half the voters) will not accept the validity of the 2020 election until they have a fair hearing. Is it not fair and just for them to have that hearing?
Supreme Court to Consider 2020 Election Challenge Lawsuits in February Conference
Posted from theepochtimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2020
Election 2020
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
I agree with you. Until the evidence is heard by justices, I have no reason to believe it isn't valid. Let's find out
(6)
(0)
3
3
0
CPT Jack Durish
Yes, but they may kick back cases to courts that refused to hear evidence. You do do realize that, don't you?
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
CPT Jack Durish - And how many have they kicked back so far? Let me give you a clue. None. In every case now pending, the Court denied a stay and is waiting to decide on certiorari. Which effectively means that the election is over.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
“Whenever I rebut their contention stating that the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds without consideration of the evidence, they laugh at me.“
Why was this case dismissed?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20422013/bowyer-v-ducey-dismissal-order.pdf
Why was this case dismissed?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20422013/bowyer-v-ducey-dismissal-order.pdf
bowyer-v-ducey-dismissal-order.pdf
§JÝVhL8X25ÞHiüíX;V(6¶äÓ1Ûìií#þö[6VÜfL4ZYÃs0iuÐ~ÉÚ?ã.·yQNA9Í¿B8ë8 3·IªQÔ:aPø)é2mËÌs@1å&m`_mSóâÍÏHdvÒ8Hcýu*m|ùSpÔÚüh fZ:ùBK]-%Þì!F@lÛðò]ZÝQëtÙËðdÎÎ~ðwv6^#{hØöÜ6ô^jÚ^õÚ§Kz^7$ÞgÌ/KöïÑÅjîRð8á¶|jGÈ;äRÒ5gY04üzä1Ç@úÌd¶\üùÄÀ2sa«s;-Äò ö"uýÏÖndtZL«\æ ÐWæ!Ú$yZ,Öªi }eBnu32ÿ»f0rUÝåzòhXaå(ý3lt1pÌ\WF?wÕnµp;yxÌ,^åXkMÐádZZVåôXÀ*ÞËó2ÉHÕÇøë~eËÿΫZÅ:¿FjÐÁ}^TÎìo/Åíãli:iÜÝÝA+sóens;ܶã}îÓgGå=Ôï=e^ÍÝ &ÆÈfÜ}àëí2ÃßE$¶zêkõåªásUPYû[r¡]K9¿Õxô,µ lÓ;nNù"Ò!ÀhÛh7ëGàx~eüªò?XJ...
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I know why it was dismissed. I was hoping CPT Jack would take a stab at it. I had a laugh track cued up.
My favorite part is on page 1. “Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence..”
My favorite part is on page 1. “Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence..”
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SGT (Join to see) - Sorry, I can't hear you laughing over the din of Democrats celebrating President Biden's EO's...
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SGT (Join to see) - sorry 'bout that, but brother Jack isn't going to see those lines in the order. He has selective reading ability...
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - sir, you failed to explain why the above case was dismissed.
Also, how are President Biden’s EOs relevant to this particular discussion?
Also, how are President Biden’s EOs relevant to this particular discussion?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google