Saturday, July 20, 2024
League of Power

The League of power


"Brought to you by Global Liberty News"

Most Popular

Judge Shocks Courtroom with Order for Bridgeport, CT Lawyers to Return and Make Post-Hearing Arguments

We’ve been waiting expectantly for the judge in the Bridgeport, Connecticut election fraud case to finally make his ruling. While the decision had been expected on Friday, October 27th, that didn’t happen. Instead, the judge called on the attorneys to submit post-hearing arguments on the case, which they did.

This is a fascinating case because it is a micro-version of what happened in the 2020 election. But unlike the national contest which was stolen from Donald Trump via ballot-box stuffing, a court actually agreed to hear this case.

Bridgeport mayoral candidate John Gomes has sued to overturn his September 12th Democrat primary election loss. Multiple city employees were caught on surveillance cameras stuffing ballot drop boxes, and Gomes ultimately “lost” the race by a razor-thin margin of just 251 votes. It’s a pattern that every 2020 Trump voter is intimately familiar with.

 

Gomes’ attorneys wrote in their post-hearing brief:

“The video evidence, exhibits and testimony prove election fraud on a scale not seen in Connecticut—or anywhere else in the country—in recent history. Not only does the record prove election tampering, it was caught on video.”

We all disagree with the details of that argument, but not the substance. There was absolutely fraud in an American election in recent history, and it took place exactly like the fraud that appears to have happened in Bridgeport.

Gomes’ attorneys argue that city employees Wanda Geter-Pataky and Eneida Martinez were caught on video stuffing ballot drop boxes (which they were). Both of them pleaded the Fifth against self-incrimination when they were called to testify in the trial.

The public has seen the Geter-Pataky video, but the Martinez one hasn’t surfaced online yet. In the Geter-Pataky video, she is shown leaving her city office at 5:41 a.m. (why was she there in the middle of the night?). She walks outside her office to the drop box stationed there and proceeds to pull multiple thick stacks of ballots out of her handbag and stuff them in the drop box.

Obvious question: If these were legitimate votes, why did she take them out of the election office and stuff them in a drop box in the middle of the night? The ballots were already inside the election office, so that makes no sense—unless the ballots ended up in Geter-Pataky’s possession illegally.

Gomes’ attorneys also astutely argue that it doesn’t even matter if these were somehow legitimate ballots from legitimate voters. If you’re a legal voter and your ballot is cast in an illegal manner, your vote is therefore legally moot and cannot be counted in the vote total. That’s plain election law.

Under Connecticut law, the only person who can return a ballot is the individual voter. That voter can also be designated to return ONE additional ballot, such as a ballot for an ailing parent or family member. It is illegal for anyone, including election workers, to deliver stacks and stacks of ballots to a drop box in Connecticut. Everybody knows this. That’s why in every local news report in Connecticut, the lying media says that Geter-Pataky and Martinez were shown on the surveillance video “depositing items” in the drop boxes.

They weren’t ITEMS! What are we all supposed to believe that these women were stuffing sandwiches in the drop boxes? They were freakin’ ballots! Therefore, this was in fact a clear violation of black letter election law in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The city attorneys defending Geter-Pataky and Martinez’s actions made some really silly arguments in their post-hearing brief. Like this one:

“Not one voter testified that their ballot did not reflect their vote. Not one voter testified that an improper designee brought their ballot to any ballot collection box.”

That’s just dumb. How would any voter even know if their ballot had been stolen and cast in their name? Plus, it’s impossible to know the names of the voters whose ballots were deposited in the drop boxes. Why would someone come forward and say an “improper designee” deposited their ballot in the drop box, if no one knows who those voters are?

It’s unclear at this point when the judge will issue a final ruling on the case. The evidence seems crystal clear from where we’re sitting, however. The drop boxes were stuffed by employees of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim. Therefore, the outcome of the election should be voided and the city should hold a do-over.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

About The Author

14 Comments

Leave A Response

Array