John R. Houk, Blog Editor
November 28, 2020
State Pennsylvania Appellate Judge by title, Commonwealth
Court Judge Patricia McCullough, ruled the Pennsylvania Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL late
last night! Now the gal is a Republican and of the Dem-Marxist Pennsylvania Governor
Tom Wolf will most likely appeal to Dem controlled State Supreme Court AND THEN
again ends up at SCOTUS. Keep in mind SCOTUS lacking a full panel failed the
Constitution with a 4 to 4 tie (Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Left!)
essentially sending back to PA State Supreme Court. BUT NOW the Supreme Court has
a full panel and it is expected Justice Amy Coney Barrett will join the
four Constitution-minded Justices and spank criminal Dem-led Courts. That’s 5 to
4 the Constitution and President Trump vindicated.
I am starting with the quite descriptive analysis Dr. Steve
Turley provided in a Saturday podcast I found on Youtube. Since Youtube
censorship is quite possible I am also cross posting two other websites that
view the significance of PA State Judge Patricia McCullough.
JRH 11/28/20
Your generosity is needed - various credit, check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal
account:
Or support by getting in the Coffee from home
business –
OR just buy
some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech
Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
********************************
VIDEO: BREAKING!
PA Judge Rules Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Effectively Gives State to TRUMP!!!
711K subscribers – Nov 28, 2020
Get Your Back Up Solar Bank Now and Be Prepared! Click Here!
http://www.backupsolarbank.com
Get 30% OFF W/ Promo Code "turley30"!
———————————————————
★★★ A NEW CONSERVATIVE AGE IS
RISING ★★★
A PA judge has basically handed the state to Trump! That’s
what we’re going to talk about in this special livestream; a PA judge has
basically handed the state to Trump! This may indeed be the first domino to
fall here; if PA falls to Trump, every single contested state will fall in line
as well, that includes AZ and NV! This is absolutely HUGE!
++++++++++++++++++++++++
BREAKING: PA Judge Patricia McCullough Rules Election
Likely “Unconstitutional”…Gives PA State Legislators Power To Choose Electors
Nov 28, 2020
On Tuesday, the Democratic Party’s mainstream media was
giddy over the news that Pennsylvania would certify their state’s November
election results. But on Thursday, in a surprising
development, Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough ordered the state to
not take any further steps to complete the certification of the presidential
race. She also blocked the certification of all the other election
results.
Commonwealth
Judge Patricia McCullough circled
Robert Barnes of Barnes Law was first to break the news with
a link to the opinion of Judge Patricia McCullough via Mark Levin. Now, in
another surprising move, the PA Trial Court has ruled the 2020 election was
likely unconstitutional in PA and that gives the state legislators the power to
choose electors.
Pennsylvania trial court rules the 2020 election was likely unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, and that gives state legislators power to choose electors. https://t.co/pWt9g81ld1
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) November 28, 2020
PA Judge Patricia A. McCullough has ruled that
Pennsylvania’s preliminary election certification injunction was properly
issued and should be upheld, stating in her opinion, “Petitioners appear to
have established a likelihood to succeed.”
BREAKING REPORT: Judge Patricia A. McCullough rules that PA preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld..
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) November 28, 2020
"Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a
likelihood to succeed."
The petitioners in the case are Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell,
Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and
Wanda Logan.
Legal
Insurrection – A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a
preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to
perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to
appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the
Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling
upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the
findings made in the Opinion released tonight.
The case has been somewhat under the radar because it
doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal
argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention
and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.
The issue, in this case, is whether legislative expansion of
absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania
Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to
preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or
otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.
The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending
further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be
relevant to the appeal:
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a
likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the
Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for
expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners
appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in
Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of
that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.
Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed
by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of
success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter
was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were
more steps to be taken [emphasis added].
Judge McCullough concluded: This is not a final ruling on
the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court
finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on
election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature
adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the
next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three
liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now
6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices
voted together.
By Sarah
Hall
November 28, 2020
[Pres.
Trump, Judge Patricia McCullough & Dem-Marxist Joe Biden]
A Pennsylvania appeals court judge ordered state officials
on Wednesday to halt any further steps toward certifying election results, a
day after Gov. Tom Wolf said he had certified Democrat Joe Biden as the winner
of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
Wolf’s administration quickly asked the state Supreme Court
to block the ruling from taking effect, saying there was no “conceivable
justification” for it.
“Since the birth of our nation nearly 250 years ago, no
court has ever issued an order purporting to interfere with a state’s
ascertainment of its presidential electors – until today,” the administration
said in its motion.
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, a Republican,
had issued the order and set a hearing for Friday. It wasn’t immediately clear
if she intended to hold up the certification of state and local contests on the
ballot or interrupt the scheduled Dec. 14 meeting of the state’s 20 electors.
She came back with more good news or Trump’s legal team as
late in the night, Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that PA preliminary
ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld and
that gives state legislators power to choose electors.
She issued a HUGELY favorable opinion
Of Note:
– Commonwealth barred from taking ANY further steps to certify results
– Issues raised found to be of “statewide and National concern”
-“likelihood to succeed on the merits”
“Additionally, Petitioners appear
to have established a
likelihood to succeed.”
so:
“..the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was
properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary
hearing From the memorandum:
“Petitioners appear to have
established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have
asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to
allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.”
The petitioners in the case are Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell,
Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and
Wanda Logan.
Legal Insurrection – A Pennsylvania state court judge has
issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further
steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited
to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the
Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling
upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of
the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.
The case has been somewhat under the radar because it
doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal
argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press
attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.
The issue, in this case, is whether legislative expansion of
absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania
Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to
preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or
otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.
The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending
further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be
relevant to the appeal:
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a
likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the
Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for
expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners
appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in
Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of
that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.
Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed
by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of
success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter
was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were
more steps to be taken [emphasis added].
Judge McCullough concluded: This is not a final ruling on
the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court
finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on
election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature
adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the
next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three
liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now
6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5
conservative Justices voted together.
Here is a copy of Friday night’s ruling.
Memorandum Opinion Filed in... by Jim Hoft
SCRIBD Link:
People shared their opinion online:
Having been a member of the PA bar, the plaintiffs have a more than solid case.
— Tench Coxe (@CoxsTench) November 28, 2020
And the fact that the judge issued this indicates to me that she agrees with them.
In any case, if any of you wonder what is memorandum opinion
here’s your explanation:
Under United States legal
practice, a memorandum opinion is usually unpublished and cannot be cited as
precedent. It is formally defined as: “[a] unanimous appellate opinion that
succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports
the court’s conclusion, usu. without elaboration because the decision follows a
well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law.”
Generally, memorandum
opinions follow ordinary rules, including the application of precedent and the
rule of stare decisis.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough:
I believe the US Constitution specifies that the state
legislature shall set the method and means of choosing the electors, quite
independent of what any judge may decree.
Sarah [Hall]
is American conservative author she is committed to the constitutional principles
of individual freedom, economic liberty, limited government, personal
responsibility, and traditional values. Sarah's legendary ability to piss off
liberals and get to the bottom of corruption makes her an extremely dangerous
foe to all the easily-triggered snowflakes out there.
____________________________
PA Judge McCullough – PA Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
November 28, 2020
______________________________
BREAKING: PA Judge Patricia McCullough Rules Election
Likely “Unconstitutional”…Gives PA State Legislators Power To Choose Electors
Copyright © 2020. 100PercentFedUp.com. All
Rights Reserved.
____________________________
BREAKING REPORT: Pennsylvania Judge Gives Rules That
The 2020 Election Was Likely Unconstitutional In Pennsylvania, And That Could
Give State Legislators Power To Choose Electors
© 2017-2019 Red
State Nation Media
No comments:
Post a Comment