It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Staci Burk and the case of the shredded ballots to be considered by SCOTUS tomorrow.

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:12 AM
link   
She stated on her Facebook page that

"Great news! The SCOTUS denied Cert but because the Constitutional claims were unlitigated, the case can now go back for round TWO through the Federal District Court".

I don't know if we link to Facebook here on ATS, but her profile is public. I was unable to find any news references.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

Here:

U S Supreme Court tosses Pinal resident's claim of election fraud

So many corrupt/bribed Justices on the Supreme Court, not one decided to hear this moron. Must be Robert's illegal children, duurrrrrr.

Maybe next month someone will tick-tock a kraken out.





edit on 4-5-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: I'm a Q-Cumber posting from the future



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im curious how many Republicans here still think GW Bush is alright.

No one I know thinks the Bush clan is anything other than a part of the criminal cabal. GHWB was instrumental in the JFK assassination.
edit on 4-5-2021 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2021 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Potentially. Yes.

I used an affidavit to prevent the SBA from auditing our company for potential software licensing violations when they so kindly offered to come in and do a full fishing expedition (they called it an audit) of our network.

Never heard from them again."

That's nice. Guess they thought it was legit. If they didn't where would you have ended up?

The SBA cannot legally enforce an audit unless they have an actual complaint from someone claiming you are in violation of licensing requirements.

When they have that, they arrive at your office with US Marshalls, and I've heard, the Marshalls come in with guns drawn, raid style.


"It is called Justice. You are talking about Just-Us."

LOL, where we go something, something.

Yeah, another typical comment from someone suffering from TDS.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Looks like the Supreme Court disagreed with you AGAIN on the validity of these affidavits.

You should take up that cause once more because doing the same thing over and over might finally net you a different result.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Looks like the Supreme Court disagreed with you AGAIN on the validity of these affidavits.

You should take up that cause once more because doing the same thing over and over might finally net you a different result.

Except the affidavits weren't in question in this case, and it was dismissed for simple lack of standing (a typical excuse of chicken-# judges).

So... you are wrong yet again.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because she had not been a registered voter since 2010 she cannot bring the lawsuit was what had been deemed originally. She had a protected voter status but was removed in 2010. Whether it was an error or not, she had not tried to vote in 10 years and was not registered at the time of the election, she also filed the paperwork after the time expired. Now it's tossed back down again I guess for the Federal Court to deny again?



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 04:57 PM
link   
m.theepochtimes.com... tm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-05-04-2&mktids=66f437005142be5fa4bccaab660b88dd&est=refTovbXd6PLS%2BQgM30Q8TJDN9qWRjnpAv H7ME6CubG44uHn1%2F%2FBRSrDeDf%2Be%2B6N4S7FvPI%3D



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because she had not been a registered voter since 2010 she cannot bring the lawsuit was what had been deemed originally. She had a protected voter status but was removed in 2010. Whether it was an error or not, she had not tried to vote in 10 years and was not registered at the time of the election, she also filed the paperwork after the time expired. Now it's tossed back down again I guess for the Federal Court to deny again?

Exactly. Nothing to do with the thousands of affidavits. They have never been assessed.

But... tick tock.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Umm well to be honest, someone who didn't even care enough to vote in 10 years now suddenly has proof of fraud and is filing law suits? Apparently the law is that you have to be a registered voter to even file. How is that the courts fault or have anything to do with affidavits? If she was so concerned about election results,maybe she would have voted in the previous elections? If she would have, she would have been registered and then you could talk about other reasons they may toss the case.
edit on 4-5-2021 by frogs453 because: Added



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: tanstaafl

Umm well to be honest, someone who didn't even care enough to vote in 10 years now suddenly has proof of fraud and is filing law suits? Apparently the law is that you have to be a registered voter to even file. How is that the courts fault or have anything to do with affidavits? If she was so concerned about election results,maybe she would have voted in the previous elections? If she would have, she would have been registered and then you could talk about other reasons they may toss the case.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm simply saying this has nothing to do with the thousands of affidavits from people who have witnessed issues or problems or outright fraud.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Ah, ok! I get what you're saying!



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Except the affidavits weren't in question in this case, and it was dismissed for simple lack of standing (a typical excuse of chicken-# judges).

So... you are wrong yet again.


Take a look at who I was talking to before you interjected yourself, they brought up the affidavits, you took up their points.

So sorry, Supreme Court no likey.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Except the affidavits weren't in question in this case, and it was dismissed for simple lack of standing (a typical excuse of chicken-# judges).

So... you are wrong yet again."

Take a look at who I was talking to before you interjected yourself, they brought up the affidavits, you took up their points.

Yes, as did you, but at least - unlike you - I didn't regurgitate the false narrative propagated by leftists and their TDS MSM co-conspiracy-theorist conspirators that the affidavits have been looked at, much less proven invalid/wrong/false.


So sorry, Supreme Court no likey.

No likey her standing, and I agree with them - but again, nothing whatsoever to do with the affidavits.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Yes, as did you, but at least - unlike you - I didn't regurgitate the false narrative propagated by leftists and their TDS MSM co-conspiracy-theorist conspirators that the affidavits have been looked at, much less proven invalid/wrong/false.


Well, that makes two of us, I said they were meaningless until subjected to cross. You should try to follow along.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Yes, as did you, but at least - unlike you - I didn't regurgitate the false narrative propagated by leftists and their TDS MSM co-conspiracy-theorist conspirators that the affidavits have been looked at, much less proven invalid/wrong/false."

Well, that makes two of us, I said they were meaningless until subjected to cross. You should try to follow along.

Follow along? I'm way ahead of you obviously.

An unrebutted affidavit is assumed to be true, unless and until it is proven to be false.

Also, in court, an affidavit must be assumed to be true for purposes of the initial proceedings, and the judge has no discretion on this. It is only upon being tested in court that the judge can rule on questions of whether or not the opposing party succeeded in proving their case (if they were challenging any or all of the claims in the affidavits).



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You find that quote of me claiming what you said? No? Too funny...

I don't care if she has 81,268,924 signed affidavits, they're all equally worthless. Call me when Mrs. Potato Head gets them to court which will be, oh, somewhere around 2,000 and Never.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

You find that quote of me claiming what you said? No? Too funny...

Except, your argument is just a moving of goalposts all over the place so nothing you state can be rebutted properly because of a total lack of clarity and meaning.

Sworn affidavits are not meaningless, as you claim - and as I clearly showed.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Except, your argument is just a moving of goalposts all over the place so nothing you state can be rebutted properly because of a total lack of clarity and meaning.

Sworn affidavits are not meaningless, as you claim - and as I clearly showed.


They are totally meaningless until challenged in court during cross.

Otherwise Sidney's Bowel would have sterped der sterl.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join