mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,910
Stop avoiding your responsibility, prevaricator.Name one liar
Prove your claim liar
Stop avoiding your responsibility, prevaricator.Name one liar
Prove your claim liar
You can't name even one lolStop avoiding your responsibility, prevaricator.
You should stop this foolish avoidance of your duty to offer proof in support of your unsupported wild claims.You can't name even one lol
God you are stupid
You should stop this foolish avoidance of your duty to offer proof in support of your unsupported wild claims.
There is another claim yopui have never proven. You claim the election was not stolen by fraud but you have not even begun to prove your claim. A recent court case was decided in which the court condemned the 2020 election fraud.you keep talking about my unsupported claims but you can't name a single one of them. lol.
i can name one of yours...that the election was stolen. why can't you name any of mine? lol
There is another claim yopui have never proven. You claim the election was not stolen by fraud but you have not even begun to prove your claim. A recent court case was decided in which the court condemned the 2020 election fraud.
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan | PDF | Mootness | Complaint (scribd.com)
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan-1-
STATE OF MICHIGANCOURT OF CLAIMS
ROBERT GENETSKI, County of Allegan Clerk, individually and in his official capacity, and MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO PLAINTIFFS AND GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANTS
v Case No. 20-000216-MMJOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity, and JONATHAN BRATER, Director of Elections, in his official capacity, Hon. Christopher M. Murray Defendants. ___________________________/Before the Court is defendants’ January 20, 2021 motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8), as well as plaintiffs’ February 3, 2021 cross-motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiffs’ cross-motion will be GRANTED in part with respect to Count II of the amended complaint because the challenged signature-matching standards were issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Asa result of the grant of summary disposition in plaintiffs’ favor on Count II, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. In addition, defendants’ motion for summary disposition will be GRANTED in part with respect to Counts III and IV of the amended complaint.
There is another claim yopui have never proven. You claim the election was not stolen by fraud but you have not even begun to prove your claim. A recent court case was decided in which the court condemned the 2020 election fraud.
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan | PDF | Mootness | Complaint (scribd.com)
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan-1-
STATE OF MICHIGANCOURT OF CLAIMS
ROBERT GENETSKI, County of Allegan Clerk, individually and in his official capacity, and MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO PLAINTIFFS AND GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANTS
v Case No. 20-000216-MMJOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity, and JONATHAN BRATER, Director of Elections, in his official capacity, Hon. Christopher M. Murray Defendants. ___________________________/Before the Court is defendants’ January 20, 2021 motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8), as well as plaintiffs’ February 3, 2021 cross-motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiffs’ cross-motion will be GRANTED in part with respect to Count II of the amended complaint because the challenged signature-matching standards were issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Asa result of the grant of summary disposition in plaintiffs’ favor on Count II, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. In addition, defendants’ motion for summary disposition will be GRANTED in part with respect to Counts III and IV of the amended complaint.
There is another claim yopui have never proven. You claim the election was not stolen by fraud but you have not even begun to prove your claim. A recent court case was decided in which the court condemned the 2020 election fraud.
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan | PDF | Mootness | Complaint (scribd.com)
Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in The Court of Claims For The State of Michigan-1-
STATE OF MICHIGANCOURT OF CLAIMS
ROBERT GENETSKI, County of Allegan Clerk, individually and in his official capacity, and MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO PLAINTIFFS AND GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANTS
v Case No. 20-000216-MMJOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity, and JONATHAN BRATER, Director of Elections, in his official capacity, Hon. Christopher M. Murray Defendants. ___________________________/Before the Court is defendants’ January 20, 2021 motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8), as well as plaintiffs’ February 3, 2021 cross-motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiffs’ cross-motion will be GRANTED in part with respect to Count II of the amended complaint because the challenged signature-matching standards were issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Asa result of the grant of summary disposition in plaintiffs’ favor on Count II, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. In addition, defendants’ motion for summary disposition will be GRANTED in part with respect to Counts III and IV of the amended complaint.
So you did not claim the election was not stolen by fraud? My bad. I apologize.where did I say it wasn't stolen by fraud?
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots the Democrats instructed election workers to illegally count cannot now be denied or debunked, proving deliberate widespread voter fraud by Democrats.non intentionally violating a law isn't an example of fraud, fraud is a DELIBERATE action, *****. duh.
and of course this doesn't prove anything was stolen. duh.
you failed again. lol
We all know that when government officials tell election workers to assume ballots with questionable signatures on them are legal and count them unless they simply can find no way to excuse all the glaring inconsistencies in the signatures, they are encouraging voting fraud. When government officials tell election workers to count tens of thousands of ballots dumped at election centers in the middle of the night after the election is closed, and those ballots are not accompanied by the legally required chain-of-custody records, the officials are committing election fraud. And so forth.The judge didn't rule on whether Benson's directive violated state election law
lol, didn't even rule that election law was violated. "yawn"
We all know that when government officials tell election workers to assume ballots with questionable signatures on them are legal and count them unless they simply can find no way to excuse all the glaring inconsistencies in the signatures, they are encouraging voting fraud. When government officials tell election workers to count tens of thousands of ballots dumped at election centers in the middle of the night after the election is closed, and those ballots are not accompanied by the legally required chain-of-custody records, the officials are committing election fraud. And so forth.
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots the Democrats instructed election workers to illegally count cannot now be denied or debunked, proving deliberate widespread voter fraud by Democrats.
So you did not claim the election was not stolen by fraud? My bad. I apologize.
This court case exposed the fact that Democrats deliberately ignored or changed election laws in order to accept invalid ballots by the thousands.hundreds of thousands were illegally counted? did the judge rule that?