We all know in our hearts when something was not done properly, but sometimes we just can’t say anything because we don’t have the authority to do it.
At the end of the day, we all want to do something but sometimes don’t have the ability to do it.
Thankfully, there are people in the world that have the ability to do something about what is going on with the election. Maybe through these brave people, we can get the result we were supposed to get.
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.
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.
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.”
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.