“A JUDICIAL COUP D’ETAT”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 1, 2016) — As he did on Monday and Tuesday, Ren Jander, JD published a post on Thursday presenting his analysis of Pennsylvania case law as it pertains to the “recount” of votes requested by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.
Stein has alleged that the integrity of the voting systems used in the November 8, 2016 presidential election in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan cannot be assured because of the possibility of hacking based on the statements of electronic voting experts. One such expert, J. Alex Halderman, described in an affidavit the means by which hacking could occur but did not allege that any evidence has been discovered that it did, in fact, occur.
Following the elections, the mainstream media did not report widespread allegations of fraud from voters in any state rising to the level of questioning the election returns.
After extensively analyzing the 255-page Pennsylvania election statutes, on Monday Jander wrote that “There will be no ‘recount‘ in Pennsylvania” because of Section 1703 (a)(1), which states, “Any petition to open a ballot box or to recanvass the votes on a voting machine or an electronic voting system pursuant to sections 1701 and 1702 shall be filed no later than five (5) days after the completion of the computational canvassing of all returns of the county by the county board,” a date which had already passed.
In Pennsylvania, in order to request a district recount of votes, three voters from that district must file formal petitions accompanied by a filing fee alleging that an error was made in tabulating the votes. There were no reports of any affidavits having been filed in Pennsylvania until Monday, when Stein began her legal actions there.
On Friday, she filed a formal request for a recount in Wisconsin for which she paid $3.5 million.
On Monday, Pennsylvania Department of State spokeswoman Wanda Murren confirmed to The Philadelphia Inquirer (philly.com) that the deadline for voters to request recounts was November 21. The wording of that article appears to have been updated.
On Tuesday, Jander’s post dealt with a lawsuit Stein had filed on Monday afternoon in Commonwealth Court which he said lacked sworn affidavits required by law. At the time, Jander also suggested that a legal team representing President-Elect Donald Trump should file a motion to dismiss which “should be granted.”
Philly.com reported on Wednesday that the court granted Stein a hearing which is scheduled for Monday at 10:00 AM as well as that a Montgomery County judge refused to allow a recount there. According to the paper, the question reportedly remains open in Philadelphia despite the deadline passed ten days ago. Neither specific parts of the state’s election law nor case law were reported to have been cited by the judge or elections officials.
In response to the delayed certification of votes in some counties, Jander wrote on Thursday, “Pennsylvania statutory code and case law perfectly agree that no viable “recount” petitions have been filed in Pennsylvania, so all must be quashed. The various counties that have delayed their certifications of the election – so that these time-barred petitions may improperly proceed – are grossly misinterpreting the Pennsylvania Election Code, which required all initial recount/recanvass voter-petitions to have been filed in Pennsylvania no later than November 21, 2016. Recounts are dead. Book it.”
Jander additionally cited the election-law case appealed to Commonwealth Court of Rinaldi v. Ferret, 941 A.2d 73 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) in which the court found the plaintiff’s filing to have been “accompanied by unnotarized verifications.” Among other deficiencies, the court ruled that it “does not satisfy the procedural requirements attached to either of these avenues for obtaining a recount.”
“Should any county board or court of common pleas actually grant a recount, it will be an act of revolution and anarchy, a judicial coup d’etat,” Jander wrote, promising a “part 2” to his analysis.