Oops! Jill Stein Cannot File Direct Request for Recount in Pennsylvania, Must Take It to Court

Stein has changed her plan for PA.
She is trying to use another legal method, but the way that she is doing it seems corrupt.

In PA, if 3 voters in a county file an affidavit asking for a recount, showing valid cause to believe there is fraud, then the county must recount.

On Stein's Facebook page, she is asking for volunteers from each of the 67 PA counties.
She says that HER LEGAL TEAM will tell them what to say on the affidavit.
That seems very corrupt.
If a voter feels a valid cause to file for recount, then sure, they should have a right.
But for Stein to solicit affidavits, and then tell them what to say on them, seems very wrong.
That is an abuse of the system.

She knows that she does not have any valid claims to fraud that would work for a candidate to file a court appeal for recount, so she is trying to use the people to work around that.

source

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Wouldn't it be amazing if the recount only proves the Democrats cheated and widens the amount of votes?

VERY possible outcome.

I'm wondering if that's not exactly Stein's purpose.... She may be trying to prove that votes were stolen from third-party voters as well, specifically that Green votes were switched to Dem votes. I have not actually seen anywhere that Stein has said that she questions Trump's win (tho I haven't seen her deny it either!). It seems that is simply assumed; and while it may or may not be the effective result, it does not necessarily have to be her motivation.

If she does not suggest that trump did not actually win then why does she need 7 million dollar for a recount in 3 red states for a supposed digital hack while not all of those states even voted digitally.

I can't phatom why you would put yourself out there like you do to defend her.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Who's to decide what is valid?
Seems like PA has a head's up here....and should be able to see this for what it really is?

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Right. Besides the deadline, this is why they went to Wisconsin first. This is a poor attempt at a gotcha moment. If they show voter fraud in Wisconsin then Pennsylvania will be recounted. Pretty simple for the unemotional. I still don't understand why Stein is doing this. Her and her donors must really have a distrust of Trump. Their choice. I also don't know why people on ATS are so bothered by this. It's interesting to observe these processes carry out. If only the masses would use this as a learning moment instead of acting like primates we'd be a lot better off.

Because she wants a recount claiming the voting system was hacked and she only want to recount 3 specific states all which were red and trump won and not all of those states even voted digitally. You dont see how that does not add up?

ok.

First she said "if hillary becomes president we are assured of a nuclear WWIII" Now all of a sudden she is doing what i described above^, and below after hillary lost. Creating the potential for that nuclear war she is sure of we will get if hillary wins. You would think she would be happy that she dodged that bullet but no, she is campaigning for it now, suddenly.

First she needed 2 million, when she got that all of a sudden she needed 2.5 million, when she got that she needed 5 million and when she got that she all of a sudden needed 7 million.

And when she got that it was "owh oops, we didn't know we needed actual proof for pensilvania". Nothing strange about all that, no...
I dont know about you but im happy i am not stupid enough to sit here and say "i dont know why everyone has any issue with that!".

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: BlueAjah

Who's to decide what is valid?
Seems like PA has a head's up here....and should be able to see this for what it really is?

I have been emailing my state reps and the election board in my county, to make sure they have a heads up.
I hope anyone else who lives in PA and does not agree with these methods does the same.

These voters had no complaint of fraud until Stein asked for volunteers and offered them legal advice.
That is not how the system is supposed to work.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Stein has changed her plan for PA.
She is trying to use another legal method, but the way that she is doing it seems corrupt.

In PA, if 3 voters in a county file an affidavit asking for a recount, showing valid cause to believe there is fraud, then the county must recount.

On Stein's Facebook page, she is asking for volunteers from each of the 67 PA counties.
She says that HER LEGAL TEAM will tell them what to say on the affidavit.
That seems very corrupt.
If a voter feels a valid cause to file for recount, then sure, they should have a right.
But for Stein to solicit affidavits, and then tell them what to say on them, seems very wrong.
That is an abuse of the system.

She knows that she does not have any valid claims to fraud that would work for a candidate to file a court appeal for recount, so she is trying to use the people to work around that.

That does not just seem corrupt, that IS corrupt. Soliciting people and write their letters for them to abuse the system while sitting on 7 million? Yeah.."volunteers" ...

This isn't about who wins... it's about ensuring the light of disinfectant reaches our electoral process. That is sacred and we all should take that seriously. If there is anything amiss -- we should investigate it, report it, and friggin' fix it, not ignore it. And the President elect -- the great Patriot (ahem) -- that he is, should want that too.

Also, the dollars are held in trust and cannot be spent for anything other than this. There is no $ windfall for the Democrats or the Green Party.

a reply to: BeBoo

You seriously need to read BlueAjah's post at the top of this page. Understand it. Embrace it. Let the words of wisdom flow through you and see where there is wrong in this. Stay on the side of light. Not darkness.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

You seriously need to read the article. Hmmm .. how unusual... lawyers writing the affidavit to submit to the courts asking for a recount... I bet they even use the right legal jargon, cite the right caselaw, and quote the correct statutes to the judge to move the recount forward. It's like a class action suit -- they need 3 citizens.

Puhhleeeeze. Shall I assume that you represent yourself in all court matters yourself? This is a mountain out of a molehill.

Yep, I am staying in the light and am hoping for a recount with all eyes of the American people upon it.

originally posted by: BeBoo
a reply to: TrueAmerican

You seriously need to read the article. Hmmm .. how unusual... lawyers writing the affidavit to submit to the courts asking for a recount... I bet they even use the right legal jargon, cite the right caselaw, and quote the correct statutes to the judge to move the recount forward. It's like a class action suit -- they need 3 citizens.

Puhhleeeeze. Shall I assume that you represent yourself in all court matters yourself? This is a mountain out of a molehill.

Yep, I am staying in the light and am hoping for a recount with all eyes of the American people upon it.

That is not the way that the law is intended to work.

If individual citizens in a voting district have a valid reason to suspect fraud, they can file an affidavit.
You don't need an attorney or legal degree to file a complaint.
You just need to use a form and clearly state why you feel the cause to report, in your own words, and swear that what you are saying is true.

So far, there have been no reports of fraud in the 67 districts, or at least not enough to trigger recounts, at least that I know of. And this is weeks after the election.

The system is not designed for some organization to solicit people to file affidavits, and then to write them for them.
This is an abuse of the system.
These voters did not have an individual reason to file a complaint, and likely would never have done so if not solicited by Stein.
This is what makes this wrong.
The system is not set up to be some kind of class-action mechanism.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I also assume you read today that Trump had his attorneys already working on a recount to challenge it if he didn't win -- BEFORE the election was called.

originally posted by: BeBoo
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I also assume you read today that Trump had his attorneys already working on a recount to challenge it if he didn't win -- BEFORE the election was called.

I'd like to see evidence of that please. And even if true, not surprised at all, and I would fully support it. BUT ONLY IN CASES WHERE THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF IT. Not after the fact, hiring lawyers to induce people themselves to file affidavits specifically designed to stir up all kinds of crap and embezzle money, like what Stein is doing here. You are not hearing at all what Blue is saying. I don't see what is so hard to understand.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Ummm.... not so much. The challenge is actually submitted by the Green Party, etc. And... here is Wisconsin:

elections.wi.gov...

And actually, it is set up that way. Getting a group together for affidavits is how it works.

"These voters did not have an individual reason to file a complaint, and likely would never have done so if not solicited by Stein. " -- And you know this.... how? I have been involved in a class action, and I never would have gone for it if I wasn't contacted that a group was forming. I also did not have the funds to hire an attorney to bring it before the court.

originally posted by: BeBoo
a reply to: BlueAjah

Ummm.... not so much. The challenge is actually submitted by the Green Party, etc. And... here is Wisconsin:

elections.wi.gov...

And actually, it is set up that way. Getting a group together for affidavits is how it works.

"These voters did not have an individual reason to file a complaint, and likely would never have done so if not solicited by Stein. " -- And you know this.... how? I have been involved in a class action, and I never would have gone for it if I wasn't contacted that a group was forming. I also did not have the funds to hire an attorney to bring it before the court.

but STEIN IS TELLING THEM WHAT TO SAY. THAT is what is WRONG. Its called coaching or leading a witness.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Oops? Hah. You telling me her legal team didn't know this before filing for a recount? No. no. Gotta be something else going on. Like a scam. Or a notorious plot to have the state's electoral votes not be counted when they can't complete and certify the recount on time.

hope #1) maybe they can actually find that they won
hope #2) it gives time to try to coerce, scare, or co-opt the electors before they submit their votes. Which they are trying to do. If, for the first time ever, they can turn the electors and cause them to vote against their sworn vote, then maybe they can turn an upset
hope #3) if they can prevent electoral certification in enough states to push Trump below 270, then they can force the vote into Congress, where they will have still more time to co-opt enough congress critters to put her in

Basically, they're stalling for time so that they have more time to subvert the system by intimidation and bribery. They're hoping they can get enough old-machine Republicans to vote for Hillary to hand her the election in Congress if they can push it there.

If they succeed, it'll be a wonderful live exercise in continuity of office.

I think Stein just ended her political career by shilling for the dems.I could be wrong but doubt it.

originally posted by: BeBoo
a reply to: BlueAjah

Ummm.... not so much. The challenge is actually submitted by the Green Party, etc. And... here is Wisconsin:

elections.wi.gov...

And actually, it is set up that way. Getting a group together for affidavits is how it works.

"These voters did not have an individual reason to file a complaint, and likely would never have done so if not solicited by Stein. " -- And you know this.... how? I have been involved in a class action, and I never would have gone for it if I wasn't contacted that a group was forming. I also did not have the funds to hire an attorney to bring it before the court.

The recount laws in PA are different than WI. I was talking about PA.

In PA, the recount can only happen in one of 3 ways:
1) an order by the Secretary of State if the margin is less than 0.5% (which did not happen)
2) 3 people in a voting district can request a recount in their specific county, with an affidavit showing valid cause
3) a candidate can challenge the county election board in EACH district, and a state appeals judge would have to rule that a statewide recount is necessary

As you see - the party itself can not just demand a recount in PA, as they can in WI.

Stein must realize that she is not going to have much luck with #3, because - it would not change her eligibility to hold office, as a recount would not help her; she would need a valid reason to request it in a court of law; and she has no evidence of fraud. Even if she did go to court, the court could still deny it.

So, she is trying for #2.

Voters do not need a lawyer for #2, which is I think where you might be confused.
They do not need Stein to do this. If they felt there was fraud, they could do that easily on their own without Stein's legal team helping them, so it is nothing like a class action.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTE:

There were two statewide recounts in Pennsylvania recent memory, one in 2009 and another in 2011. In 2009, a mandatory statewide recount was ordered (because of that 0.5 percent threshold) in the primary race for Commonwealth Court. The original result was sustained, and the recount cost taxpayers more than half a million dollars. In 2011, there was a primary recount for the Superior Court under the same conditions. That result was also sustained.

What should be most troubling for Clinton supporters who want her to ask for a Pennsylvania recount is that in the past, these recounts have yielded a shift of just a couple hundred votes, certainly not enough to overturn anything in Pennsylvania. Clinton’s team would have to rely on proving massive voter fraud enough for a Pennsylvania court to rule the entire state invalid — an unprecedented and nearly impossible feat.

In PA, Trump won by over 70,000 votes.
There is no way that recount is going to change the county by that much.
So, their goal must be to try to get the entire state eliminated.
Someone has paid Stein alot of money. The ones who did this must have a plan, which could include using some kind of fraud to affect the recount.

source

originally posted by: Bedlam

...if they can prevent electoral certification in enough states to push Trump below 270, then they can force the vote into Congress, where they will have still more time to co-opt enough congress critters to put her in

Basically, they're stalling for time so that they have more time to subvert the system by intimidation and bribery. They're hoping they can get enough old-machine Republicans to vote for Hillary to hand her the election in Congress if they can push it there.

I bought into this line of thinking over the weekend but after some research I don't think it will work out this way. If they can't get the "recount" done by the deadline, the electoral votes will be awarded automatically to Trump. In other words, the certified results are final unless proven otherwise. This was actually Gore's downfall in 2000. The supreme court has made it very clear that the orderly transfer of power must be maintained and not delayed except in extremely dire circumstances (a recount does not even come close to qualifying)

a reply to: everyone

If she does not suggest that trump did not actually win then why does she need 7 million dollar for a recount in 3 red states for a supposed digital hack while not all of those states even voted digitally.

For exactly the reasons I stated and which you quoted -- Sheesh!!!

"She may be trying to prove that votes were stolen from third-party voters as well, specifically that Green votes were switched to Dem votes. I have not actually seen anywhere that Stein has said that she questions Trump's win (tho I haven't seen her deny it either!). It seems that is simply assumed; and while it may or may not be the effective result, it does not necessarily have to be her motivation."

All three states were expected to go to Clinton. Those are three states which have been previously accused of voter/election fraud; specifically, because they have close margins, and those are the easiest elections to rig.

And while those three states may have used paper ballots, most (if not all) were counted electronically; and in at least two states, they were counted by Soros-connected Smartmatic machines.

If votes for Trump were flipping to Clinton, I'll bet dollars to donuts that votes for Stein (and Johnson) were also flipping for Clinton. Wouldn't Stein as well? Wouldn't you???

I can't phatom why you would put yourself out there like you do to defend her.

Refusing to assume the worst about someone is not defending them. I get it -- you think you know what's really in Stein's heart and mind... I don't pretend to know what I cannot know.

I have -- and have had -- serious questions about the integrity of our elections. I want answers. Real answers. I'm willing to give Jill the benefit of the doubt unless and until she proves otherwise. I'm far more concerned at Hillary's motives in joining the fray. Her motives I question.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: eisegesis
Considering that all three states would have to be overturned in order for Hillary to steal the election, this is great news!

If that is true, which I have heard as much too, then I think this recount is over as far as getting Clinton in there. Because people are saying that Michigan has done a recount, and gave it to Trump. They are to certify the vote count in the next couple of days I believe.

The End?

God, I hope so. Michigan originally went to Trump by ~13,000 votes. Now they're saying it's ~10,000. I sure as heck am hoping that when Jill Stein files for a recount, Michigan says "We've already done a recount, and we're sure. You have no standing to ask for another one."