Trump wins Wisconsin?

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: cavesofchaos
a reply to: MotherMayEye This website has a rather large problem in that it is plagued by incorrect information such as provided in OP that is allowed to stand even after it has been proven to be false later on inside the thread. Most people barely even read past the headlines let alone whole pages of nonsense. Deny ignorance.

This website is a collection of information about mother-trucking UFO's, Sasquatch, demons, angels, magic and more.

It's funny that you should pick on a thread like this.

LOL keep posting

it could a post about a does a bear chit in the woods and there would be somebody here arguing that it isn't true.

a reply to: Tempter

Your quoted text doesnt match the document you linked.

Wonder what happened there.

Deep state?

I guess it has changed a bit since you posted

From the linked pdf....

THE COURT has before it Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief filed December
1, 2020, seeking:
1. An order directing the Defendants Wisconsin Elections Commission and Governor Tony
Evers not to certify or to de-certify the 2020 election results in the Presidential and District 3
Congressional races;
2. An order enjoining Defendants from transmitting the currently certified Presidential election
results to the Electoral College;
3. An order requiring Governor Evers to transmit certified Presidential election results that state
that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election;
4. An immediate emergency order to seize and impound all servers, software, voting machines,
tabulators, printers, portable media, logs, ballot applications, ballot return envelopes, ballot ima

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Tempter

How much you want to bet that Wisconsin's EC votes go to Biden in two weeks?

It IS a temporary injunction, and it may (likely) not hold.

However, for the moment, it appears Trump has won Wisconsin.

That's a bloody reach and a half.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: cavesofchaos
a reply to: MotherMayEye This website has a rather large problem in that it is plagued by incorrect information such as provided in OP that is allowed to stand even after it has been proven to be false later on inside the thread. Most people barely even read past the headlines let alone whole pages of nonsense. Deny ignorance.

This website is a collection of information about mother-trucking UFO's, Sasquatch, demons, angels, magic and more.

It's funny that you should pick on a thread like this.

You have to dig deep under the Mud Pit to find it

a reply to: Tempter

The Chan's pointed me to

There’s your first mistake.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: sighbul
a reply to: Tempter

No, this is:

Description
MOTION to Amend/Correct Docket # 2: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dean, Michael)

The Plaintiff wrote this order, wanting the Judge to sign it.

The court ordered it?

Read it again.

The Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of this Emergent Injunctive Relief Order, and

for good cause shown IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiffs don't order anything.

No, but a majority of the trial courts that I have appeared in require a party, plaintiff or defendant, to submit a proposed order, and sometimes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, with any motion orresponse. The judge will consider the motion, any responses or replies, and make a decision. If either proposed order fits his decision, the judge can sign it and have the clerk enter it. That clerk's entry is very important. It is not effective until entered and entry starts th clock running for th tim limits for furthEr steps, like an appeal. According to PACER, it is still proposed, not entered. You can sign up for a PACER account. You don't have to be an attorney, but it would help you to understand how the docket entries work.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: sighbul
a reply to: Tempter

No, this is:

Description
MOTION to Amend/Correct Docket # 2: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dean, Michael)

The Plaintiff wrote this order, wanting the Judge to sign it.

The court ordered it?

Read it again.

The Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of this Emergent Injunctive Relief Order, and

for good cause shown IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiffs don't order anything.

No, but a majority of the trial courts that I have appeared in require a party, plaintiff or defendant, to submit a proposed order, and sometimes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, with any motion orresponse. The judge will consider the motion, any responses or replies, and make a decision. If either proposed order fits his decision, the judge can sign it and have the clerk enter it. That clerk's entry is very important. It is not effective until entered and entry starts th clock running for th tim limits for furthEr steps, like an appeal. According to PACER, it is still proposed, not entered. You can sign up for a PACER account. You don't have to be an attorney, but it would help you to understand how the docket entries work.

This. Proposed orders are required by most courts when filing motions. The moving party submits a proposed order setting forth exactly how they want the judge to rule. So, if you're seeking a two-week extension to file a brief, the proposed order would say " . . . it is hereby ordered that [moving party's] brief will be due two weeks from [original due date]." If the judge agrees, then they just sign your order and the clerk enters it. If the judge thinks that you only deserve a one week extension, they may draft an order from scratch, or literally just take a pen, cross out where you wrote "two weeks" and write in "one week" instead. In a motion as important as this, where the judge is unlikely to give Plaintiffs what they are asking for, the judge would likely craft an order from scratch.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Could a State Judge order the Governor of a State to declare that Trump is the winner?

I mean, the slate of Electors is chosen by the people, theoretically.

Just playing along that this has any merit at all.

a reply to: Tempter
Your title will be accurate after the signature/ballot verification process is completed.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Tempter
Your title will be accurate after the signature/ballot verification process is completed.

What's the success rate of your prognostications again?

Like 0 for 274,402? or something?

LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Could a State Judge order the Governor of a State to declare that Trump is the winner?

I mean, the slate of Electors is chosen by the people, theoretically.

Just playing along that this has any merit at all.

That's a complicated question and it would likely depend on what the state constitution and statutes say about the role of the state's Governor in certifying the results of an election and the amount of discretion given to the Governor, and I'd need to look into the specific state laws to answer questions about specific states.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No. They cannot do that. The only thing the courts can do is declare the ballots are invalid which would change counts. The Legislative branch is who controls the elections. This is why governors who stepped in to make changes to the ballots were incorrect and why Alito ordered those in PA put aside. It is happening in other states also.

It will go to the electorate and they make a decision on who to give the votes to. It really has, honestly, nothing to do with the vote of the people. This is who the Constitution is designed. To protect the voter from fraud such as is being shown.

Then Congress has to approve.

There are many steps in this chain of events that could change the outcome of the election...or not.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

No. They cannot do that. The only thing the courts can do is declare the ballots are invalid which would change counts. The Legislative branch is who controls the elections. This is why governors who stepped in to make changes to the ballots were incorrect and why Alito ordered those in PA put aside. It is happening in other states also.

It will go to the electorate and they make a decision on who to give the votes to. It really has, honestly, nothing to do with the vote of the people. This is who the Constitution is designed. To protect the voter from fraud such as is being shown.

Then Congress has to approve.

There are many steps in this chain of events that could change the outcome of the election...or not.

Well, I hope it's patently clear to most readers that this post is utter nonsense. Not saying whether a court could or could not make such an order under any given circumstance, but nothing that was said above has any bearing on it.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

No. They cannot do that. The only thing the courts can do is declare the ballots are invalid which would change counts. The Legislative branch is who controls the elections. This is why governors who stepped in to make changes to the ballots were incorrect and why Alito ordered those in PA put aside. It is happening in other states also.

It will go to the electorate and they make a decision on who to give the votes to. It really has, honestly, nothing to do with the vote of the people. This is who the Constitution is designed. To protect the voter from fraud such as is being shown.

Then Congress has to approve.

There are many steps in this chain of events that could change the outcome of the election...or not.

Well, I hope it's patently clear to most readers that this post is utter nonsense. Not saying whether a court could or could not make such an order under any given circumstance, but nothing that was said above has any bearing on it.

So know you are the ATS fact checker....too much. Putting lawyer from TV as your avatar does not make you an expert.

a reply to: matafuchs

What a jumble ... thanks for your response.

My question to the other poster is whether a court could order the Governor of that state to declare Trump the winner.

You say the court cannot. Thanks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The reason I say that is that the EC votes in the president. Not the Governors or even the vote of the people to be very honest. States have tried to change the way the EC votes are applied but it is not up to the Governors.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The reason I say that is that the EC votes in the president. Not the Governors or even the vote of the people to be very honest. States have tried to change the way the EC votes are applied but it is not up to the Governors.

Governors do have a role to play in the certification process, and it is the certification process that determine to whom the electors' votes will go. It's just not as simple as saying that the electors, not the governor, ultimately vote.

Order Dec 1, 2020 Notice of Judge Assignment 7 Dec 2, 2020 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/2/2020 re 6 Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief. (cc: all counsel)(cb) Main Doc­ument Ordera reply to: Tempter

www.courtlistener.com...

1 Dec 1, 2020 COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs by William Feehan. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number AWIEDC-3652059) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit)(Dean, Michael) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/1/2020: # 28 Civil Cover Sheet) (jcl). Main Doc­ument Complaint Attach­ment 1 Exhibit Attach­ment 2 Exhibit Attach­ment 3 Exhibit Attach­ment 4 Exhibit Attach­ment 5 Exhibit Attach­ment 6 Exhibit Attach­ment 7 Exhibit Attach­ment 8 Exhibit Attach­ment 9 Exhibit Attach­ment 10 Exhibit Attach­ment 11 Exhibit Attach­ment 12 Exhibit Attach­ment 13 Exhibit Attach­ment 14 Exhibit Attach­ment 15 Exhibit Attach­ment 16 Exhibit Attach­ment 17 Exhibit Attach­ment 18 Exhibit Attach­ment 19 Exhibit Attach­ment 20 Exhibit Attach­ment 21 Exhibit Attach­ment 22 Exhibit Attach­ment 23 Exhibit Attach­ment 24 Exhibit Attach­ment 25 Exhibit Attach­ment 26 Exhibit Attach­ment 27 Exhibit Attach­ment 28 Civil Cover Sheet 2 Dec 1, 2020 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by All Plaintiffs. (Dean, Michael) Main Doc­ument Temporary Restraining Order 3 Dec 1, 2020 BRIEF in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . (Dean, Michael) Main Doc­ument Brief in Support of Motion Dec 1, 2020 NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Chief Judge Pamela Pepper; Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Joseph to be filed within 21 days; the consent/refusal form is available here. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed. (jcl) 4 Dec 1, 2020 Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form filed by All Plaintiffs. (NOTICE: Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 this document is not viewable by the judge.) (Dean, Michael) Main Doc­ument Consent/Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge 5 Dec 1, 2020 DISCLOSURE Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Dean, Michael) Main Doc­ument Disclosure Statement 6 Dec 1, 2020 MOTION to Amend/Correct Docket # 2: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dean, Michael) Main Doc­ument Amend/Correct Attach­ment 1 Text of Proposed Order Dec 1, 2020 Notice of Judge Assignment 7 Dec 2, 2020 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/2/2020 re 6 Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief. (cc: all counsel)(cb) Main Doc­ument Order

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Well, I hope it's patently clear to most readers that this post is utter nonsense.

Nope, not 'utter nonsense'.

The first paragraph is pretty much spot on...

The second paragraph is wrong - it doesn't go to the electorate - unless by that they meant the State Legislature.

Not saying whether a court could or could not make such an order under any given circumstance,

Of course they could...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs
My question to the other poster is whether a court could order the Governor of that state to declare Trump the winner.

No, that ain't gonna happen, and it was stupid of the plaintiff to ask for it.