Valfusk under USA-valet 2020? Rapporterade incidenter.

On the other hand, the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument, or perjured evidence, or for any matter which was actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. Mr. Wells, in his very useful work on Res Adjudicata, says, sect. 499: 'Fraud vitiates every thing, and a judgment equally with a contract; that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud.' . . . 'Likewise, there are few exceptions to the rule that equity will not go behind the judgment to interpose in the cause itself, but only when there was some hindrance besides the negligence of the defendant, in presenting the defence in the legal action. There is an old case in South Carolina to the effect that fraud in obtaining a bill of sale would justify equitable interference as to the judgment obtained thereon. But I judge it stands almost or quite alone, and has no weight as a precedent.' The case he refers to is Crauford v. Crauford, 4 Desau. (S. C.) 176. See also Bigelow on Fraud, 170-172.

Citat:

Ursprungligen postat av Cancel---Culture

Konstigt att vänsterfascisterna redan är säkra på att inget valfusk skett? Det är bara konspirationer? Verkar som ni vet mer än dom som faktiskt utreder valfusket i USA. Är nog tyvärr dags för GOP att fuska utan dess like nästa val, jag menar det sker aldrig valfusk ju, kommer ni försöka förneka det då också? Eller är det bara för att det drabbade personen som bor i era sjuka huvuden 24/7?


https://nationalfile.com/breaking-arizona-senate-serves-maricopa-county-with-subpoena-for-routers-ballot-envelopes-voter-data bases/

Varför vägrar Maricopa County ge ifrån sig routers och liknande om valet nu var så säkert? Varför är det fel att göra en forensisk audit av det säkraste valet någonsin?

och nu ska även Wisconsin utreda valfusket!

https://nationalfile.com/wisconsin-assembly-campaigns-and-elections-committee-to-conduct-full-forensic-audit-of-2020-election /

Snaran dras åt!

This Master Services Agreement (the “Master Agreement”) is entered into as of the 31 day of March, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), between Cyber Ninjas, Inc., a Florida Corporation, (the “Contractor”), and
the Arizona State Senate (the “Client”). Contractor and Client are referred to herein individually as a
“Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

14 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES.
EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, CONTRACTOR MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR SUITABILITY OR RESULTS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE USE OF
ANY SERVICE, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE, DELIVERABLES, WORK PRODUCT OR OTHER MATERIALS PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT CONTRACTOR’S SERVICES DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY GUARANTEE OR ASSURANCE THAT THE SECURITY OF CLIENT’S SYSTEMS, NETWORKS AND ASSETS CANNOT BE BREACHED OR ARE NOT AT RISK. CONTRACTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT EACH AND EVERY VULNERABILITY WILL BE DISCOVERED AS PART OF THE SERVICES AND CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO CLIENT SHOULD VULNERABILITIES LATER BE DISCOVERED.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20536949-arizona-senate-cyber-ninjas-contract-executed-033121

1
In this case a bill in chancery is brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, to use the language of the bill itself, 'by Walter Van Dyke, United States attorney for that district, on behalf of the United States,' against Throckmorton, Howard, Goold, and Haggin.

2
The object of the bill is to have a decree of the court, setting aside and declaring to be null and void a confirmation of the claim of W. A. Richardson under a Mexican grant, to certain lands, made by the board of commissioners of private land-claims in California on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1853; and the decree of the District Court of the United States, made Feb. 11, 1856, affirming the decree of the commissioners, and again confirming Richardson's claim. The general ground on which this relief is asked is that both these decrees were obtained by fraud.

7
The bill in this case is filed May 13, 1876, more than twenty years after the rendition of the decree which it seeks to annul. During that time Richardson, the claimant, and the man who is personally charged with the guilt of the fraud, has died; his heirs, who with himself were claimants in the suit, are not made parties, and the land has passed from his ownership to that of the present defendants by purchase and conveyance.

35
For these reasons, we are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court sustaining a demurrer to the bill, and dismissing it on the merits, was right.

36
Decree affirmed.