Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki

Viewing 27 posts - 151 through 177 (of 177 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1946025
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“To which you replied (as late as Jan 7 !!!) that she was still “… going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here, because you were too Lazy to look for them yourself!” (note NOT that she went already and submitted her briefs, but that there would still be a hearign in the old, ordinary defintion of the word)”

    Let me ask you something – Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?
    She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.
    Yet you keep posting to me -“The lie I identified was that she claimed she would release evidence “soon” and “soon” had already past”.
    So either you are too Lazy to read the File or you can’t understand my Simple Posts!

    “To which I replied, that no her case would never be heard
    To which You called me a liar.”

    Unfortunately you don’t have any understanding of Legal terms, but you continue to Argue that you are Right.
    Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?

    I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.
    That means that they read/heard the Case before them!
    This is from Wikipedia, but I looked at a lot of Legal sites and it’s almost identical:
    “In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed, there being a constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The reason for this is that Article Three of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to “cases and controversies”. Thus, a civil action or appeal in which the court’s decision will not affect the rights of the parties is ordinarily beyond the power of the court to decide, provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions.”

    #1946055
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?”

    Nope

    “She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.”

    You changed to this position later, at first you insisted (over and over) that she would have a hearing. and that if her case was dismissed it would be the first time in history remeber when yo said this “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

    It is quite a redefinition of ” a court case” to include a case being thrown out as moot, as coun

    “So either you are too Lazy to read the File”
    read it already

    “Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?”

    No. It is becasue I find our discussions fascinating.

    “I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.”

    Yes, I got your new definition of judgment. And I suppose it is also “hav[ing] a court case” correct?

    I’m not sure why you are copying wikipedia. I know what a moot case is, As I told you months (literallly) ado that the case wouldn’t be heard since would be moot.

    There was no judgment and will be none.
    As You correctly quote from Wikipedia …a moot case must be dismissed,…” there is no decision, there is no judgment it is “dismissed”

    See later on in Wikipedia whci h YOU quoted) where they compared t to “ripeness” where it is even more explicit “..that holds that judges SHOULD NOT RULE on cases based entirely on anticipated disputes…”

    The question posed was whether enough evidence to support claims of violations of elections (among other things)
    What did the court decide?
    What will they decide?

    They of course won’t (as I’ve ben saying for months)

    They aren’t “deciding” it is moot. That wasn’t (and isn’t) the question
    The case will be dismissed (because it is now moot)

    #1946057
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    new question

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    #1946082
    MadeAliyah
    Participant

    ..and as Donald took a sip of cov fefe, and Joe mumbled through his two masks, @ubiquitin and @Health walked off into the sunset telling the tales of the Great Steal That Was(n’t) and The Lying Liers Who Lied.

    THE END

    #1946185
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    MadeAliyah

    you wish

    #1946274
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards”
    “Yes, I got your new definition of judgment. And I suppose it is also “hav[ing] a court case” correct?”

    You just proved that you can’t even understand Simple Posts!
    I just posted this from Wikipedia and you didn’t even begin to understand it:
    “In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed,”
    Let me explain it, because you have No clue!
    Who do you think dismisses cases – you or the Court?!?

    Before you post more Nonsense – I wrote this:
    “provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions”
    So who decides whether the case has exceptions – You or the Court?!?
    So obviously they either hear or read the case.
    Dismissing cases is a Judgment!
    I think I explained it so well, even a First Grader can understand my posts!!!

    #1946313
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Who do you think dismisses cases – you or the Court?!?”

    The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed

    ““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””

    Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
    I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.
    You did not mention any exception until yesterday.

    Of course time proved me correct. Do you have the resolve to say “Wow Ubiq you were right when you said the curt wouldn’t issue a ruling, I’m sorry I called you a liar” ?
    Lol! of course not. Instead you redefine basic words

    “I think I explained it so well, even a First Grader can understand my posts!!!”

    You do! I understood every word of all that you’ve posted. Do not worry

    Repeating my new questions
    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    #1946343
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    Lets keep it simple
    On 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””

    today are you saying:
    1) that there was/ will be a court case (on the topic in question)
    2) there wasn’t/wont be and this is a historic development – “first time in history”
    3) Your assertion on 12/20 was mistaken

    I cant think of another option

    #1946346
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed”
    ““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””
    “Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
    I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.”

    I tried to dumb it down that a first grader would understand, but obviously that’s not good enough for You!
    Yes, they have to read the case or motion to see if there is any exceptions in the case.
    This is called having a Court Case.
    They haven’t done that yet.
    When they do and if there isn’t any exceptions in it, then they can issue a judgment.
    This judgment can be something called moot or something else!
    You’re confusing the term moot in laymen’s terms with Legal terms.
    It’s not an automatic definition – “it’s Moot”.

    You should become a DemonCrat Politician, because they Impeach Presidents on PC terms!
    I already posted in different Topics, that what Trump did or said, didn’t qualify to be Unconstitutional or Illegal!
    That’s the problem with DemonCrats – they practice PC law.
    (That’s why almost no one was prosecuted, Fully, during the Left Libs Riots, all last year!)
    But I got news for them – we already have laws and the Constitution – there is a process to change them & it’s Not on their Whim!

    #1946377
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “This is called having a Court Case.”

    It what language?
    definitely not English nor Yiddish , French or Hebrew, In none of those languages is ruling a case as moot called “having a court case”

    I don’t know what the rest of your post about “PC law” has to do with anything

    And again, although you are redefining words to try to fit your wrong point. It STILL doesn’t help you. You said she would be hard in court. Surely you must grant she won’t b invited to said conference. So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot”
    I STILL didn’t lie when I told you (over and over) that her case wouldn’t be heard

    so back to the topic at hand

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    #1946402
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“And again, although you are redefining words to try to fit your wrong point. It STILL doesn’t help you. You said she would be hard in court. Surely you must grant she won’t b invited to said conference. So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot””

    I don’t know how times I have to tell you – that your interpretation is Not a Legal one!
    Moot is a judgment, no matter how many times you lie and say it’s not!
    That’s why You can’t determine whether a case is Moot, only a Judge.

    “I STILL didn’t lie when I told you (over and over) that her case wouldn’t be heard”

    On Feb 5 – I wrote:
    “That’s called being heard.
    If they make a judgment of moot, then they read/heard the case”

    Do you know what the slash between words means?
    Obviously you don’t, but I’ll tell you for Free.
    It means one or the other, Not both!

    #1946413
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    ” that your interpretation ”

    Interpretation of what?

    “Moot is a judgment”
    not in the sense that we have been discussing for months. And it certainly isnt a “court case” being heard. It is literally the opposite .
    And you really thought all this time I was saying the court was just going to ignore the case , without formally dismissing it?
    cmon, even for you that is a stretch ,
    (Furthermore Your claim, of what you meant isn’t plausible since AFTER her briefs were submitted, you still insisted she would reveal more evidence in court when her “case is heard” (an event I told you wouldn’t happen) Even if the conference counts as a court case, no new information will be provided by her, so your claim is still wrong)

    but, Ok
    So lets pretend a case being dismissed as moot, is the same as a case that is heard. (though even typing those words out as a hypothetical is bizarre)

    Fine moving on, back to the subject at hand

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    #1946606
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Interpretation of what?”

    Of this:
    “that your interpretation is Not a Legal one!”
    “So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot””

    Why must I explain things that even a kindergarten kid understands?!?

    “And you really thought all this time I was saying the court was just going to ignore the case , without formally dismissing it?”

    Don’t put words in my mouth!

    “(Furthermore Your claim, of what you meant isn’t plausible since AFTER her briefs were submitted, you still insisted she would reveal more evidence in court when her “case is heard”

    Again you misunderstood what I wrote.
    At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.
    This is what happens when you post things on websites for political points!
    If you had a drop of honesty – you’d ask her.
    She has email and you could have sent her by regular mail.
    She might have given you an answer.
    But of course, You and the rest of the DemonCrats think – you’re in the right!

    Btw, the case is Still pending, but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.
    How do you know that? Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?
    The Gemorah says Nevious is given to one of those 3 types after the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed.

    #1946703
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Healt h dearest

    “Don’t put words in my mouth!”

    I am not,
    Help me understand

    You claimed her case would be heard by the Supreme court, and that “she will” (note: not that she did already) release her evidence then.
    you said this Dec 20 AFTER her briefs were in. She has provided NO new information since then.

    I replied (correctly) that her case won’t be heard.
    what did You think I meant

    “At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.”

    Lol. so when you said “she will provide evidence” You were lying correct? ( To be c lear: you are big on calling people liars, I dont think you were lying (then) . I think you were simply mistaken, and perhaps hopeful that somehow things would go your way. but inexplicably view it ias a weakness to admit it now, and instead come up with increasingly bizarre explanations and redefinition.

    “Btw, the case is Still pending,”

    Yes, as I told you confrence is scheduled fro 2/19 (note: nOT a court case)

    ” but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.”
    no not a judgment of moot, but they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)

    How do you know that?”

    What can I say, these are things we learn in kindergarten

    “If you had a drop of honesty – you’d ask her.”
    I dont have any questions for her. I do have a question for you though : When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    #1946751
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“I replied (correctly) that her case won’t be heard.
    what did You think I meant…”
    “no not a judgment of moot, but they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”

    And again – how do you know that?
    “Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?
    The Gemorah says Nevious is given to one of those 3 types after the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed.”

    “You were lying correct?”

    I was mistaken. Don’t tell me that you don’t know the difference between mistaken and lying.
    Well I’ll tell you – mistaken is by accident – lying is trying to manipulate or deceive s/o!

    “When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied”

    IDK of any Court Case with Powell.
    Tell me whether it’s Federal or State and where was this case filed.
    Also the Docket number.

    #1946794
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “And again – how do you know that”

    I’m smart? From reading, following the law? also see below
    You dont always need a navi to predict the future. If you drop a glass it will break.

    “Don’t tell me that you don’t know the difference between mistaken and lying.”
    I do, as I told you, I do not think you were lying.

    “IDK of any Court Case with Powell.”
    Its been all over the news. You should follow the news more if you want to be more informed. This you you wont be mistaken as often, and wont call other people names, while you are the one who is mistaken.

    “Tell me whether it’s Federal or State”
    Federal

    ” and where was this case filed.”
    US district court for DC

    “Also the Docket number.”
    Case 1:21-cv-00040
    Also the Docket number.

    #1946801
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“I’m smart?”

    That’s Not my opinion!

    “From reading, following the law?”
    Most people think that, but they can’t actually do it.
    I actually have!

    “also see below
    You dont always need a navi to predict the future. If you drop a glass it will break.”

    It’s not in the least bit comparable!

    Ok, I just went to the case.
    She asked for an extension for her “Reply”.
    She’ll probably get one because Plantiff didn’t oppose it.
    It’s too early to even ask questions about this lawsuit.
    Ask me much later.

    #1951005
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    petition denied
    …….

    #1951120
    Health
    Participant

    Of course it was denied. It’s way past anything that SCOTUS could change. This is a judgment of moot.
    And I’m sure they read the Motions.

    #1951218
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “It’s way past anything that SCOTUS could change. This is a judgment of moot.”

    Lol as late as Jan 18 you still thought there was a chance, based on “goyishe prophets”

    you called me a liar, when I told you The case would be dismissed for being moot (2 weeks before you invented “judgement of moot” .
    an apology would be nice

    #1951225
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “And I’m sure they read the Motions.”

    They may have, (though impossible to tell from the order and dissents)

    The court denied certiorari. Certiorari is the process when a higher court reviews the lower court’s decision. SCOTUS denied it, meaning they aren’t reviewing the case.

    They aren’t saying anything as to whether there was fraud, or whether Pensylvanis’ court had right to change deadline. They simply arent ruling on it.

    As spelled out in Thomas’s dissent “The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for
    leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot” (note not “judged as moot”) later in the dicisio he describes the court as “doing nothing ”
    similarly Gorsuch and Alito in their dissent, agree with Tomas that ” we should grant review in these cases.” Becasue the court DID NOT reviwe it. The petiton for the court to review the case was denied,. The case WAS NOT heard. and again “These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. ”

    #1951422
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“you called me a liar, when I told you The case would be dismissed for being moot (2 weeks before you invented “judgement of moot
    They may have, (though impossible to tell from the order and dissents)”

    You try to make it seem that you know what you’re talking about.
    Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?
    They might tell e/o that it is dismissed as being Moot, but what does that mean?
    I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.
    Now they need an excuse – in this case they let e/o know – it was dismissed as Being Moot.
    In other words, it’s really a Judgment.
    Stop confusing yourself that it’s not Really a Judgment.
    It’s just the way to be PC.

    Stop thinking that you are a Know – it – All!

    #1951475
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?”
    no

    “They might tell e/o that it is dismissed as being Moot, but what does that mean?”

    Already explained it to you January 18th. after which you insisted that I was wrong, the case would still be “heard” and that I was a liar

    “I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
    Maybe, maybe not .
    Regardless Doesn’t change the fact that I correctly said this would happen months ago, and AFTER I told you this you said I was a liar

    “In other words, it’s really a Judgment.”
    Thats not how words work. words have definitions, not all words are interchangeable

    “Stop confusing yourself that it’s not Really a Judgment.”
    not confused. Even if Thomas is wrong when he wrote the court declined to review the case.

    It still doesnt chaneg the fact that when I told you January 18th that the case would be dismissed as moot, I was not lying.

    At any rate looking forward to the outcome in Powell’s case.
    I’m super excited to see what pretzel logic you will come up with to defend her when (if) it is ruled that she lied, or she settles and apologizes

    #1951583
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“”Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?”
    no
    Already explained it to you January 18th. after which you insisted that I was wrong, the case would still be “heard” and that I was a liar
    “I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
    Maybe, maybe not .
    Thats not how words work. words have definitions, not all words are interchangeable”

    Why don’t you admit that you Don’t Know how SCOTUS works?
    Is it because of your Haughtiness?!?

    Yes, they read almost every case & then they make decisions.
    Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t.
    When they don’t want to take it – they have different ways to get rid of it.
    One of the ways is to get rid of it – is by dismissed it because it was moot!
    SCOTUS doesn’t work the way you think.
    I found out how it works – when I did my case.

    #1951694
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Yes, they read almost every case & then they make decisions.”

    Lol at “almost” So maybe this is one of the cases they didn’t read?
    (and again, ‘m not saying they didn’t read it, I read it it didn’t take that long,I’m sure they did too)

    “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t.”
    correct. I’m glad to have explained this to you.
    On Dec 20th you didn’t know that, you said the opposite: “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

    Then you were under the mistaken impression that once a petition is accepted they always have a “court case” Now you correctly note “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t”

    You are most welcome!

    “When they don’t want to take it – they have different ways to get rid of it.
    One of the ways is to get rid of it – is by dismissed it because it was moot!”

    correct! As I have been telling you for months. They don’t always take court cases (as you now agree) Though in the past you called me a liar when I said this.

    The court chooses which cases to hear. I told you (over and over) that they would not hear Powell’s case. You called me a liar .

    “SCOTUS doesn’t work the way you think”

    It works exactly As Ive been telling you for months

    .
    “I found out how it works – when I did my case.”

    Was your case this week? Because a few weeks ago you didn’t know how it worked. I think this may be the source of your confusion you are confusing secret supreme court with regular supreme court. I don’t know anything about secret supreme court.

    In regular suprme court they don’t always hear the case as you correctly note now, and not like you said Dec 20.
    no thanks are necessary for my having explained this to you It is my pleasure .

    #1952015
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Lol at “almost” So maybe this is one of the cases they didn’t read?”

    I expected your typical Irony!
    The reason I wrote “almost”, is in case a clown like you took a Federal case all the way up to SCOTUS.
    They wouldn’t waste their time to even read it!
    But all other cases they read.

    “On Dec 20th you didn’t know that, you said the opposite: “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

    You still don’t understand anything I post!
    Again, Reading the case & then deciding on it – is called having a Court Case!
    How many times do I have to tell you that they read it and made decisions on it, ie. Judgment?!?
    With your Total lack of Knowledge of Law – you only think a Court Case is like watching the Perry Mason Show!

    Before you comment on things that you Know Nothing about – How about researching the the Topic?!?
    I surely hope you Don’t practice Medicine the Same Way!

    #1952076
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “is in case a clown like you took a Federal case all the way up to SCOTUS.
    They wouldn’t waste their time to even read it!”

    ding ding ding!
    nailed it!
    Yes!
    when there are clowns invloved the case is certain to get tossed!*

    “How many times do I have to tell you that they read it and made decisions on it, ie. Judgment?!?”
    hopefully no more times, since it is wrong, as you finally acknowledged “they read the case and decided not to take it.”
    Ie they decide NOT to take the Court case, if they decide not to take the case, then there is no case.

    and again, even if there was a case, still doesn’t change the fact that when I told you Jan 18th the case would be dismissed as moot, and I was lying, I wasnt lying.

    “Before you comment on things that you Know Nothing about – How about researching the the Topic?!?”

    Lol!
    I was right on every prediction I made on this thread, you have been mystified has to how I know all these things asking “but how do you know that”

    * BTW this is the answer to your question posed Feb 8 (before the Court denied certiorari, ie. declined to hear the case)
    I had said “…they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”
    You asked “And again – how do you know that? “Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?”

    You would have known it to, if you just put down your blinders , as you correctly note a case brought by a clown wouldn’t stand a chance of being heard, or even read.

Viewing 27 posts - 151 through 177 (of 177 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.