I have the answer to the student loan problem

[mark francis]

let me respond again *****.
that's not how the legal system works, *****.

at no point did anyone rule that no republican committed fraud in 2016 either, *****.
because that's not how the legal system works, *****. lol

god you're stupid. lol

I see. You claim judges found no evidence of fraud yet could not find any evidence that no fraud occurred because they are not in the business of examining evidence of voter fraud. That weak explanation does not sound logical to me.

 

[pjmret]

Claiming judges saw no evidence of fraud proves nothing. Millions of Americans have never seen any evidence of voter fraud but, of course, they cannot prove no fraud or massive fraud took place. Now if you posted evidence of a judge claiming evidence proves Democrats did not commit voter fraud then that would mean a lot.

if you could prove that no republican committed fraud in 2016 to elect trump, that would mean a lot. lol.

you're a *****

 

[pjmret]

I see. You claim judges found no evidence of fraud yet could not find any evidence that no fraud occurred because they are not in the business of examining evidence of voter fraud. That weak explanation does not sound logical to me.

i don't "claim" they ruled the evidence was not credible that showed fraud occurred, *****, that was their ruling.

you're a *****. lol

 

[pjmret]

You don't need to make excuses for the Democrat election official. Besides, claiming he meant that he thinks there is widespread voter fraud but does not admit it does not clear air of official acknowledgement of voter fraud.

its not an "official acknowledgment' *****. lol.

you're so stupid

 

[mark francis]

it proves the evidence was not credible to judges, *****. lol.

now, if you could ever make an intelligent post that would mean a lot. but you won't. because you are a lying *****

Let's see how many different reasons judges gave for avoiding voter fraud cases.

Here is one case so common among so many cases in which the judge did not rule on the evidence but insead ruled that questioning the results of an election would damage our political system. That ruling did nothing to disprove the evidence since the evidence was never the issue.

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case - 9 & 10 News (9and10news.com)

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case

April 21, 2022

9and10news Site Staff

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed the Antrim County Circuit Court’s dismissal in the case of William Bailey v Antrim County, which challenged the 2020 presidential elections results.

In an opinion, Court of Appeals Judges Thomas C. Cameron, Mark J. Cavanagh and Michael F. Gadola, rejected Bailey’s argument that the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018, grants private citizens an individual right to request an audit of election results.

“This decision joins a growing number of court rulings that continue to uphold the legitimacy and accuracy of our elections,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said. “As we have remained from the very beginning, my office is committed to preserving the integrity of our democratic system. The panel’s ruling is additional reinforcement in this important fight.”

“This dismissal once again affirms not only the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 election results, but that those claiming otherwise will not be able to use our legal system as a vehicle for furthering their misinformation and conspiracy theories,” added Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “The court’s ruling is a heartening reminder that despite ongoing efforts to dismantle our democracy and make it easier to overturn future elections, the data, the facts, and the truth are on our side.”

 

[mark francis]

its not an "official acknowledgment' *****. lol.

you're so stupid

OK, fine. It's just an unofficial acknowledgement by a Democrat election official that Democrat voter fraud is common and widespread in NYC.

 

[pjmret]

Let's see how many different reasons judges gave for avoiding voter fraud cases.

Here is one case so common among so many cases in which the judge did not rule on the evidence but insead ruled that questioning the results of an election would damage our political system. That ruling did nothing to disprove the evidence since the evidence was never the issue.

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case - 9 & 10 News (9and10news.com)

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case

April 21, 2022

9and10news Site Staff

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed the Antrim County Circuit Court’s dismissal in the case of William Bailey v Antrim County, which challenged the 2020 presidential elections results.

In an opinion, Court of Appeals Judges Thomas C. Cameron, Mark J. Cavanagh and Michael F. Gadola, rejected Bailey’s argument that the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018, grants private citizens an individual right to request an audit of election results.

“This decision joins a growing number of court rulings that continue to uphold the legitimacy and accuracy of our elections,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said. “As we have remained from the very beginning, my office is committed to preserving the integrity of our democratic system. The panel’s ruling is additional reinforcement in this important fight.”

“This dismissal once again affirms not only the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 election results, but that those claiming otherwise will not be able to use our legal system as a vehicle for furthering their misinformation and conspiracy theories,” added Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “The court’s ruling is a heartening reminder that despite ongoing efforts to dismantle our democracy and make it easier to overturn future elections, the data, the facts, and the truth are on our side.”

yes, another court loss for those who said the election was stolen. lol.

you're a *****.

BTW court of appeals don't look at evidence, *****, they look at procedures by the original judge. . you are a legal *****. lol

 

[pjmret]

OK, fine. It's just an unofficial acknowledgement by a Democrat election official that Democrat voter fraud is common and widespread in NYC.

its an offhand remark with no proof. "I think" means nothing *****. lol
its an opinion with no evidence. lol.

 

[mark francis]

yes, another court loss for those who said the election was stolen. lol.

you're a *****.

BTW court of appeals don't look at evidence, *****, they look at procedures by the original judge. . you are a legal *****. lol

Most courts that rejected voter fraud cases never ruled specifically on the evidence but on other things like jurisdiction issues, validity of questioning elections, timing issues, and so forth.

 

[pjmret]

Most courts that rejected voter fraud cases never ruled specifically on the evidence but on other things like jurisdiction issues, validity of questioning elections, timing issues, and so forth.

not a single court that looked at the evidence found it credible. lol.
not only was the evidence not credible., they managed to screw up all kinds of other legal things too. they were total morons.
which is why so many were sanctioned. lol

you morons are just plain morons.

 

[pjmret]

Most courts that rejected voter fraud cases never ruled specifically on the evidence but on other things like jurisdiction issues, validity of questioning elections, timing issues, and so forth.

list the court cases and show how many looked at evidence, etc.

lets see if you can actually do something intelligent.
but I doubt it

 

[mark francis]

its an offhand remark with no proof. "I think" means nothing *****. lol
its an opinion with no evidence. lol.

Let's examine the narratives for what the words really mean and do not mean. Here is a report we can examine, making our comments in red:

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign (That statement is true. Cases have been dismissed, but does that mean courts discovered no fraud took place, no significant fraud took place, fraud cases by Trump were rejected for false statements, or that courts thoroughly examined the evidence and ruled that the evidence did not prove fraud? Actually, the statement claims none of those things. The statement claims cases were dismissed but does not say why they were dismissed.)​

By Reuters Staff.
6 MIN READ

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. (This statement is also true. A Facebook poster did say that.)

This is false: (What is false, that the claim was made? No, the claim was made on Facebook. We must then assume the fact-checker is challenging the claim made by the Facebook poster. So did multiple courts rule that Biden legally won the election? We don't know because the fact-checker does not quote a single judge claiming Biden won the 2020 election.)

..state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. (That is true but it does not prove judges ruled the evidence of fraud was false nor does it prove no voter fraud occurred nor does it provide irrefutable evidence that Biden won the 2020 election without fraud.)

 

[pjmret]

Let's examine the narratives for what the words really mean and do not mean. Here is a report we can examine, making our comments in red:

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign (That statement is true. Cases have been dismissed, but does that mean courts discovered no fraud took place, no significant fraud took place, fraud cases by Trump were rejected for false statements, or that courts thoroughly examined the evidence and ruled that the evidence did not prove fraud? Actually, the statement claims none of those things. The statement claims cases were dismissed but does not say why they were dismissed.)​

By Reuters Staff.
6 MIN READ

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. (This statement is also true. A Facebook poster did say that.)

This is false: (What is false, that the claim was made? No, the claim was made on Facebook. We must then assume the fact-checker is challenging the claim made by the Facebook poster. So did multiple courts rule that Biden legally won the election? We don't know because the fact-checker does not quote a single judge claiming Biden won the 2020 election.)

..state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. (That is true but it does not prove judges ruled the evidence of fraud was false nor does it prove no voter fraud occurred nor does it provide irrefutable evidence that Biden won the 2020 election without fraud.)

lets examine the fact you are a legal ***** and no court ruled that the evidence provided by republicans showed fraud.

"innocent until proven guilty" is how our system works, *****. you allege fraud, you have to prove it. and..you didn't lol

its really that siimple ,*****. lol

 

[mark francis]

not a single court that looked at the evidence found it credible. lol.
not only was the evidence not credible., they managed to screw up all kinds of other legal things too. they were total morons.
which is why so many were sanctioned. lol

you morons are just plain morons.

Make up your mind. Did judges examine voter fraud evidence or not? If a judge did examine voter fraud evidence did he then rule that the evidence he examined proved Democrats committed no voter fraud in 2020? Can you provide a copy of the court ruling?

 

[mark francis]

list the court cases and show how many looked at evidence, etc.

lets see if you can actually do something intelligent.
but I doubt it

I cannot find a single court case whose ruling was that the evidence proved the Democrats did not commit voting fraud in 2020.