Supreme Court Dockets Delco Vote Fraud Case

Supreme Court Dockets Delco Vote Fraud Case — The United States Supreme Court has docketed the case of Greg Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes regarding vote fraud in Delaware County, Pa. from the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court docket is the list of cases that a particular session of the court has agreed to consider.

It should be noted that most docketed cases are denied before the plaintiffs can appear before the justices.

Greg and Leah’s case, 22-503, is appealing a decision by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and was filed Nov. 22.

They are representing themselves.

Greg and Leah note that the original case filed in Delaware County Common Pleas Court included Dasha Pruett the Republican candidate for Pennsylvania’s 5th Congressional District that year, and the Delco Republican Executive Committee.

Mrs. Pruett left the case when Common Pleas Court dismissed it on Jan. 13, 2021 and sanctioned Greg and Leah. This included fining them $50,000 and trying to get their lawyer, Deborah Silver, disbarred.

Supreme Court Dockets Delco Vote Fraud Case
Leah Hoopes, Emerald Robinson and Greg Stenstrom

The Delco GOP was excised from the case by the Commonwealth Court for not responding to any filing after the initial complaint.

Regarding the sanctions — which can be fairly called lawfare — noted attorney Bruce Castor successfully defended Greg, Leah and Ms. Silver in Commonwealth Court, which dismissed the fines and sanctions.

The points Greg and Leah are asking the court to address are:

  • Is the spoliation of election materials and evidence, required to be maintained by federal and state law, by election officials to perfect massive election fraud, evidence of said fraud by itself, and/or sufficient to infer adverse verdict?
  • Do duly appointed, certified poll watchers, who have taken an oath to fulfill their lawful duties as intervenors for both the candidates they represent, and the citizenry, have standing to petition the Courts on their own behalf to remedy grievous violations of election law, election fraud, and associated civil law?
  • Does the Court of first remedy in considering alleged grievous election and civil violations (in this case, the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania), have a duty to have an evidentiary hearing, and be presented evidence of allegations of massive election fraud that could change the outcome of an election, before ruling there isn’t a “scintilla of evidence” and otherwise ruling on facts not in evidence?
  • Does immediate notification of spoliation and destruction of election materials required to be maintained by federal and state law for 22 months (or as long as litigative controversy is pending), that proves massive election fraud that could change the outcome of an election, require the Court of first remedy to intervene to secure said evidence, as the lawful arbiter to preserve the integrity of the election system?
  • Are lawyers and “esquires” a special class that can unilaterally decide the outcome of litigative controversy without transparency, input, acknowledgement, or permission of petitioners, plaintiffs, and defendants and the citizenry, without public hearing, transcript or accountability?
  • Should both candidates for election represented by counsel, and Pro Se citizen litigants, be afforded the latitude and grace of the Supreme Court of the United States, as final arbiters of the Republic, to curate technically deficient but meritorious cases regarding the most sacred right of voting by the citizenry of the United States in their selection of their elected representatives, given the Court has repeatedly done so for other cases?
  • Is it lawful for public officials to intimidate, harass, and demand civil and criminal sanctions, and against lawful intervenors, candidates, citizens, and their attorneys for having the temerity to challenge grievous election law violations that would change the outcome of elections?
  • Should petitioners lawsuit(s), who hold hard physical evidence, sworn affidavits, whistleblower videos and audio admissions of election officials committing criminal election fraud, documentation, unreconciled returns, and a literal mountain of evidence that approximately 327,000 votes were fraudulently certified in Delaware County, PA, in a presidential election that Joseph Biden allegedly “won” by approximately 80,000 votes, and undercard statewide elections of lesser margins, be considered for public remediation by the United States Supreme Court, or returned to the Court of first remedy (Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, PA)?
  • Is it lawful for the beneficiary(ies) of alleged election fraud to unilaterally investigate and adjudicate said fraud (i.eThe Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro and District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer).

Greg and Leah were interviewed by Emerald Robinson, yesterday, Dec. 6 regarding this. Check it out here.

Supreme Court Dockets Delco Vote Fraud Case

Change Sex But Not Weight

Change Sex But Not Weight –Today’s question: Why do our academic and media authorities say one can change one’s sex but not one’s body weight?

Anyone? Anyone?

The links we gave to articles defending these practices are written authoritatively using objective language.

For this nation to be saved it is imperative to understand that just because something is written or said authoritatively doesn’t make it true.

A litmus test is to watch the dissenters. If allowed voice, shoddy logic will be exposed. A perfect recent example is Ye’s “I heart Hitler” appearance on Alex Jones.

Kudos to Alex. It’s one big reason why he should not be scrubbed from society.

If dissenters are gaslit and shouted down, however, the odds start getting high they are in the right.

It doesn’t mean they are but one can’t fault those on the sidelines for thinking that.

Also be suspicious of those who speak authoritatively. In other words . . .

Change Sex But Not Weight

Wisdom I know is social William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 12-7-22

Wisdom I know is social William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 12-7-22

Q cybyjqho cqd sqd isqhsubo fhytu xyciubv ed xqlydw icyjjud q ibuufydw uduco; yj yi cehu q cqjjuh ev ixqcu, iycfbo, veh jxu edu icyjjud.
Yieheak Oqcqceje

Wisdom I know is social William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 12-7-22Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: Wisdom I know is social. She seeks her fellows. But Beauty is jealous, and illy bears the presence of a rival.
Thomas Jefferson

Wisdom I know is social William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 12-7-22
%d bloggers like this: