Warning USA: Jill Stein has a Devious December Surprise to Overthrow the Election

“DISTRICT” VS. “ELECTION DISTRICT”

by Ren Jander, JD, ©2016, blogging at Jander Research

blog-of-the-day(Dec. 6, 2016) — A careful pondering upon Jill Stein’s Federal Court law suit filing last night revealed the truly devious hand of the brilliant legal scheming puppet master pulling her strings from behind the scenes in Pennsylvania.

Look at page 7, paragraphs 37-39, wherein the devious plot is revealed:

37. That petition by three voters in a district can only activate a recount in that 
district.

38. Pennsylvania has 9,158 election districts in 67 counties.

39. In order for voters to request a statewide recount in Pennsylvania, 27,474 voters evenly spread throughout 9,158 districts must sign petitions, get them notarized, and bring them to their local county board of elections.

Briefly now – extensively later – I will explain the mega devious December Surprise awaiting the USA any minute now:

The 9158 “voting districts” are referred to in the Election Code as “election districts”, but there are also 18 “Congressional Districts” specifically mentioned in the Code, the votes from which must be certified separately by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Either Stein’s attorneys, or the federal court on its own observance will point out that 1404(e) states:

(e) Provision for Recount or Recanvass of Vote.–Whenever it shall appear that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any election district, or, upon petition of three voters of any district, verified by affidavit, that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been committed therein – See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3154.html#sthash.OSUIvaRB.dpuf

Then the argument will be made that the Pennsylvania Election Code specifically states that the term “election district” refers to precinct level voting districts, and that recounts due to discrepancies noticed by election officials mentioned in 1404(e) take place in the precinct level “voting districts”, as Stein’s federal filing refers to them, but that the voter-initiated recount/recanvass petitions are submitted from “any district”.

Then it will be held that “any district” is a different term than “electoral district”, and that the Pennsylvania General Assembly refers to “Congressional Districts” in using “any district”.

The court will observe that voter-initiated recounts were never supposed to be so cumbersome as plead by Stein, and that the Electoral Code grants a full Congressional District wide recount/recanvass to successful voter-petitioners pleading under 1404(e).

And the point is that Jill Stein’s petitioners probably did file in every Congressional District but not every precinct.

Why is this important? Because the Pennsylvania Election Code at 1404(e) states that if a single recount petition by three voters is granted, the recount “shall” take place throughout the entire district. It does not use the term “election district”.

Some of Jill Stein’s petitioners were granted a recount or recanvass, but only in their little precinct, when – it will be argued and held – that the whole Congressional District should have been included in the recount/recanvass.

Oops! Now what, America?

Read the rest here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.