President Trump signs EO to crack down on mail-in ballots

[jacksonlamb]

Are you claiming courts cannot be biased?

Complicit Bias and the Supreme Court

Abstract Excerpted From: Michele Goodwin, Complicit Bias and the Supreme Court, 136 Harvard Law Review Forum 119 (December, 2022) (295 Footnotes) (Full Document) Even as judges and courts serve as important safeguards and guardians against state and federal enforcement of unjust, harmful...

racism.org

Complicit Bias and the Supreme Court​

Parent Category: Stereotype, Bias, RacismCategory:Bias and the Law26 January 2024Hits: 3601


Abstract

Excerpted From: Michele Goodwin, Complicit Bias and the Supreme Court, 136 Harvard Law Review Forum 119 (December, 2022) (295 Footnotes) (Full Document)

Even as judges and courts serve as important safeguards and guardians against state and federal enforcement of unjust, harmful, and unconstitutional laws and discriminatory policies, they too may be fallible, weak in judgement and character, personally and professionally indifferent to systemic injustice, or corruptible. As history demonstrates, judges may be complicit in perpetuating harms or furthering discrimination against vulnerable people, including racial minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and people who identify as LGBTQ. In other words, judges may possess cognitive awareness of a past or present harm against a vulnerable group and yet refuse to intervene to avert the continuance of harm or discrimination.

where is the evidence that 60 courts were biased?

 

[jacksonlamb]

You are correct that where investigations were blocked there was a shortage of proof for or against claims of election fraud.

Ruling against allegation is not blocking lack of proof, because (wait for it)... no proof was presented.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You still seem too eager to accept the word of pundits, groups, or people who fail to supply sufficient evidence to make their claims more believable.

Now you are gaslighting and trolling. What you condemn is what your lawyers did.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You still seem too eager to accept the word of pundits, groups, or people who fail to supply sufficient evidence to make their claims more believable.

I accept the words of experts, and you don't.

 

[jacksonlamb]

How much time did dozens of courts give investigators before the Biden inauguration to gather evidence of fraud from precincts that fought like hell against the investigations? Democrats don't think very deeply about what they claim or believe without thinking.

Every court gave reasonable time. You can prove nothing to counter it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Where to begin with all the extant evidence of voting fraud still unrefuted from 2020?

1. There were not more votes than voters in Pennsylvania | AP News

There were not more votes than voters in Pennsylvania

Published 5:05 PM EST, December 29, 2020

CLAIM: There were 205,000 more votes than voters in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania.

Yes there were until democrats quickly moved after the election to change the data.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b271...CstK0thbXpvbCtyZXBvcnQmZm9ybT1DU0JSQU5E&ntb=1

Microsoft Word – Kamzol Report Overview​

The Kamzol report is a data analysis document authored by Jesse Kamzol, a former Republican National Committee Chief Data Officer and data science expert, who has over 15 years of experience in data management and analysis Nevada Republican Party. It was produced in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential general election and is referenced in a Nevada court case involving a challenge to the election results.

Purpose and Context​

The report was submitted as part of a contested election case in the First Judicial District Court of Carson City, Nevada. The “Contestants” — Trump’s presidential electors — designated Kamzol as an expert witness under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(a)(2) ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com. His role was to analyze voter and commercial databases to identify potential irregularities in Nevada’s 2020 election.

Scope of Analysis​

Kamzol reviewed over 2 million records from multiple public and commercial databases, including:

• Nevada city/county/jurisdiction voter files
• Nevada state voter files
• Election Day and mail/absentee vote files
• Early voting files
• Consumer data files
• USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) files Nevada Republican Party

He did not include provisional vote data, which he was denied access to, but still found significant anomalies.

Key Findings​

From the available data, Kamzol identified 130,709 unique cases with multiple levels of “illegal ballots” Nevada Republican Party. Notable issues included:

• Non-Nevada mailing addresses: 19,218 Nevada voters had addresses outside Nevada; 15,164 of these voted by mail/absentee.
• Non-existent addresses: 8,111 voters had registered addresses that were physically non-existent (e.g., vacant lots, non-existent apartment/house numbers). Of these, 3,262 voted by mail and 4,849 voted in person.
• Other anomalies: voters with the same name, deceased voters, nonresidential addresses, undeliverable mail, and inconsistencies between Nevada’s vote reporting systems ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com.

Legal Use​

In the court case, Kamzol’s testimony was intended to show fraudulent and improper voting in Nevada that exceeded the candidates’ vote differences in the 2020 presidential election ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com. The report and his analysis were part of the evidence presented to the court.

Access​

The full Kamzol report is available as a Microsoft Word document (e.g., “kamzol data report.docx”) on the Nevada GOP website Nevada Republican Party. It contains detailed methodology, data sources, and statistical conclusions.

Tip: If you need to open or edit the report in Microsoft Word, you can download it from the source and use Microsoft Word or Word Online for editing, collaboration, and formatting word.cloud.microsoft+1.

I commend you for the effort. However, the claims were rejected as unfounded.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Where to begin with all the extant evidence of voting fraud still unrefuted from 2020?

1. There were not more votes than voters in Pennsylvania | AP News

There were not more votes than voters in Pennsylvania

Published 5:05 PM EST, December 29, 2020

CLAIM: There were 205,000 more votes than voters in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania.

Yes there were until democrats quickly moved after the election to change the data.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b271...CstK0thbXpvbCtyZXBvcnQmZm9ybT1DU0JSQU5E&ntb=1

Microsoft Word – Kamzol Report Overview​

The Kamzol report is a data analysis document authored by Jesse Kamzol, a former Republican National Committee Chief Data Officer and data science expert, who has over 15 years of experience in data management and analysis Nevada Republican Party. It was produced in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential general election and is referenced in a Nevada court case involving a challenge to the election results.

Purpose and Context​

The report was submitted as part of a contested election case in the First Judicial District Court of Carson City, Nevada. The “Contestants” — Trump’s presidential electors — designated Kamzol as an expert witness under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(a)(2) ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com. His role was to analyze voter and commercial databases to identify potential irregularities in Nevada’s 2020 election.

Scope of Analysis​

Kamzol reviewed over 2 million records from multiple public and commercial databases, including:

• Nevada city/county/jurisdiction voter files
• Nevada state voter files
• Election Day and mail/absentee vote files
• Early voting files
• Consumer data files
• USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) files Nevada Republican Party

He did not include provisional vote data, which he was denied access to, but still found significant anomalies.

Key Findings​

From the available data, Kamzol identified 130,709 unique cases with multiple levels of “illegal ballots” Nevada Republican Party. Notable issues included:

• Non-Nevada mailing addresses: 19,218 Nevada voters had addresses outside Nevada; 15,164 of these voted by mail/absentee.
• Non-existent addresses: 8,111 voters had registered addresses that were physically non-existent (e.g., vacant lots, non-existent apartment/house numbers). Of these, 3,262 voted by mail and 4,849 voted in person.
• Other anomalies: voters with the same name, deceased voters, nonresidential addresses, undeliverable mail, and inconsistencies between Nevada’s vote reporting systems ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com.

Legal Use​

In the court case, Kamzol’s testimony was intended to show fraudulent and improper voting in Nevada that exceeded the candidates’ vote differences in the 2020 presidential election ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com. The report and his analysis were part of the evidence presented to the court.

Access​

The full Kamzol report is available as a Microsoft Word document (e.g., “kamzol data report.docx”) on the Nevada GOP website Nevada Republican Party. It contains detailed methodology, data sources, and statistical conclusions.

Tip: If you need to open or edit the report in Microsoft Word, you can download it from the source and use Microsoft Word or Word Online for editing, collaboration, and formatting word.cloud.microsoft+1.

Homie, you are not beating the allegations. In your first example, the AP you linked to goes against what you are saying? Almost like you linked it without even reading it? Kind of like a bot?

Are you just copy pasting what your AI gives you? Seriously, at least clean it up?

Regarding your 2nd example, the court concluded that Kamzol's data was not credible.
The court concluded that the Kamzol's data was not credible, and Russell wrote that his methodology "had little to no information about or supervision over the origins of his data, the manner in which it had been matched, and what the rate of false positives would be. Additionally, there was little or no verification of his numbers."

In the 35-page order, Russell also wrote that "the record does not support a finding that any Nevada voter voted twice." - https://www.aol.com/news/fact-check-voter-fraud-claims-232634307.html

So the 1st point you raised, you linked to something that was against your own argument? And the 2nd is clearly something you have just copy pasted from AI.

Why don't you start a new chat with your AI, and give it the following question, without any other instruction that you might infect it with:

"Was there Substantiative evidence of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election?" - why don't you give it that if you like copy-pasting from AI so much?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Markef will not be getting paid for this very, very soon.

 

[markef]

where is the evidence that 60 courts were biased?

It's not that courts were biased so much as it remains incontrovertible that courts did not have enough time to properly investigate and try evidence of voter fraud in just the few weeks between the election and Biden's inauguration. Not a single court during that time examined evidence of voter fraud and concluded the evidence of voter fraud was not credible.

 

[markef]

Ruling against allegation is not blocking lack of proof, because (wait for it)... no proof was presented.

Democrats know they have their fraud covered because of their success in fooling Americans into believing the insufficient evidence of fraud was due to rarity of fraud and not due to the insufficient time given to investigate fraud and tremendous democrat obstructions to investigations into fraud. For example, can investigators uncover evidence of suspected or apparent voting machine fraud when democrats block every attempt to examine their stoutly protected Dominion voting machines from investigations?

 

[markef]

Now you are gaslighting and trolling. What you condemn is what your lawyers did.

In spite of all the excuses and smoke screening rhetoric democrats have still never disproven the massive amount of still unrefuted evidence of voter fraud. For example, we know hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were illegally registered to vote in deep blue precincts, yet democrats dishonestly and deceptively claim the fact that none of the illegals has been convicted of illegally voting supposedly proves that very few if any of the illegals actually voted. Nonsense. The lack of convictions proves nothing. It is election fraud for illegals to illegally register to vote in the first place and nobody knows how many dozens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of the illegals actually illegally voted. Democrats fail to prove no significant fraud exists.

 

[jacksonlamb]

It's not that courts were biased so much as it remains incontrovertible that courts did not have enough time to properly investigate and try evidence of voter fraud in just the few weeks between the election and Biden's inauguration. Not a single court during that time examined evidence of voter fraud and concluded the evidence of voter fraud was not credible.

Based on the plaintiffs' lack of evidence, the Court's time was wasted on frivolous lawsuits.

No credible evidence of voter fraud was offered, so the Cour concluded the evidence of voter fraud was not credible.

 

[jacksonlamb]

In spite of all the excuses and smoke screening rhetoric democrats have still never disproven the massive amount of still unrefuted evidence of voter fraud. For example, we know hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were illegally registered to vote in deep blue precincts, yet democrats dishonestly and deceptively claim the fact that none of the illegals has been convicted of illegally voting supposedly proves that very few if any of the illegals actually voted. Nonsense. The lack of convictions proves nothing. It is election fraud for illegals to illegally register to vote in the first place and nobody knows how many dozens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of the illegals actually illegally voted. Democrats fail to prove no significant fraud exists.

More allegations without any proof.

markef, you need to offer evidence.

 

[markef]

I accept the words of experts, and you don't.

Fulton County elections officials admits 315,000 votes weren’t signed by poll workers

Fulton County says it'll cost $400,000 to give the state the documents they want.

www.wsbtv.com

Fulton County

Fulton County elections officials admits 315,000 votes weren’t signed by poll workers​

Election law requires signature verifications of ballots to be counted. Do democrats think they can violate election laws while claiming their election was the most accurate and secure in American history?

 

[jacksonlamb]

There was insufficient evidence provided in sixty cases.

That is a heck of well-constructed conspiracy against Trump.

 

[markef]

Every court gave reasonable time. You can prove nothing to counter it.

Democrats claim they had more than enough time to determine how many illegals illegally voted in the election yet none of them ever determined what that number was in any precinct in the nation.

 

[markef]

I commend you for the effort. However, the claims were rejected as unfounded.

Democrats claimed those presenting evidence of voting fraud were all refuted. That is a monumental lie.

 

[markef]

Homie, you are not beating the allegations. In your first example, the AP you linked to goes against what you are saying? Almost like you linked it without even reading it? Kind of like a bot?

Are you just copy pasting what your AI gives you? Seriously, at least clean it up?

Regarding your 2nd example, the court concluded that Kamzol's data was not credible.
The court concluded that the Kamzol's data was not credible, and Russell wrote that his methodology "had little to no information about or supervision over the origins of his data, the manner in which it had been matched, and what the rate of false positives would be. Additionally, there was little or no verification of his numbers."

In the 35-page order, Russell also wrote that "the record does not support a finding that any Nevada voter voted twice." - Fact check: Voter fraud claims in Nevada based on failed lawsuit

So the 1st point you raised, you linked to something that was against your own argument? And the 2nd is clearly something you have just copy pasted from AI.

Why don't you start a new chat with your AI, and give it the following question, without any other instruction that you might infect it with:

"Was there Substantiative evidence of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election?" - why don't you give it that if you like copy-pasting from AI so much?

You and I disagree on the voter fraud claims and reports. That proves nothing. What can be said about research which offers several possible reasons or explanations for why some election results which appear to show more votes for a candidate than the number of valid voters on the voting registry is not really fraud?



2. There were more votes cast than legally registered in ...

There were more votes cast than legally registered in what jurisdictions
Researched on February 1, 2026

 

[jacksonlamb]

Democrats claimed those presenting evidence of voting fraud were all refuted. That is a monumental lie.

Fallacy of unsupported assertion

 

[jacksonlamb]

You and I disagree on the voter fraud claims and reports. That proves nothing.

Your lack of evidence proves you are wrong.