jlv wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 3:51 am
From the
Wisconsin ruling today:
¶33 REBECCA FRANK DALLET and JILL J.
KAROFSKY, JJ. (concurring). As acknowledged by the President's
counsel at oral argument, the President would have the people of
this country believe that fraud took place in Wisconsin during the
November 3, 2020 election. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The President failed to point to even one vote cast in
this election by an ineligible voter; yet he asks this court to
disenfranchise over 220,000 voters. The circuit court, whose
decision we affirm, found no evidence of any fraud.
Your link was broken, I fixed it.
For anyone who might not click the link and read the full document, I would like to play devils advocate and inform that the decision was far from unanimous, and even those who were in agreement with the majority, did not hold as strong opinion as Judge Dallet and Karofsky. Most obvious example would be:
PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting).
Elections have consequences. One candidate wins and the other
loses, but in every case, it is critical that the public perceive
that the election was fairly conducted.
In the case now before us, a significant portion of the
public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential
election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this
court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require
to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully
dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the
merits of the claims presented.
The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane
County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous
advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective
witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of
Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for
ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The
majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers
did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court
throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be
repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to
correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are
capable of providing it.2 Because we do not, I respectfully
dissent.
She goes further in explaining the court battles and decisions that the county board of canvassers in Milwaukee and Dane county has made on these matters, the recounts, etc. I encourage everyone to go read it if they find this at all interesting.
A ruling separate to that, but on the subject of the "indefinitely confined" category I find interesting is this one:
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Dis ... qNo=315283
Many mainstream media goons overlooked this because this is a bit of a "win" into the "Trump and allies" category you hear so much about when they are "tallying" up the court loses. Of course, as I have done with your link, I encourage everyone to read the parts of which agree and dissent (all agree partially, some dissented partially). I won't quote any of the judges individual opinions, that I will leave up to anyone who might be interested. It is probably no surprise that ones with partial dissent are the same ones in the other case who are in the majority decision and of the opinion quoted above.
The argument and opinion is that the election was a free and fair election, and that no fraud occurred as per Judge Dallet and Karofsky. The problem I have with this is they are digging in as the voice of truth with as much grounding to stand on as Trump does by saying the contrary is true. We have the observable facts:
- In March, election officials wrongly advised their constituents on voting by category of "indefinitely confined"
- We know this was greatly expanded and questioned with the spring elections.
- The numbers show a four-fold increase in the number of voters under "indefinitely confined" from 2016 to 2020.
- The number of increase has historically never happened, coincidently, we are in a pandemic. Which is now agreed by the SC as not a reason to file under this category.
Anyone following the advice of the officials from March, even though later "corrected/advised", would be deemed as a fraudulent/ineligible vote whether intentional or unintentional. The evidence provided is correctly observed by the judges as no definite proof of fraud, however, it is also not evidence of the contrary. Any opinion of such like Judge Dallet and Karofsky's opinions, is not rooted in fact that there was no fraud. We are in a grey area of "well there might be or there might not be". I agree Trump is wrong in trying to overturn based on that merit, but equally I would say, anyone else is wrong in certifying it as "free and fair" based on that merit. As I displayed in the Benfords law video, there needs to be an impartial investigation into these unprecedented anomalies to ensure that the margin of victory is not in question.
I cannot tell you with certainty that Trump would win WI if this is looked into further. I can't tell you with certainty that Biden wins stands if it looked into further. Does that sound like free, fair, and certifiable? Is it really Trumps fault we are questioning this? Is it him making a mockery of this, or is the mockery really the mess that has never seen the national spotlight before?
