So tell me

[DCandtheUTBand]

were the men who signed on to this document right or wrong (see below after my comments?)

This election was stolen. 140 members of the House, 11 members of the Senate,local pub officials in Pa and Ga say it, Americas Mayor says it. We have seen videos of it with our own eyes. There are 1000s of affidavits claiming to witness it. Statistical anomalies make it more likely for Biden to have won the lottery than the election. No court will hear actual evidence and have dismissed cases claiming some procedural reason.

Peter King former R- NY was on Newsmax making a case for the legal process. Ga didn't fix its election problems and allowed 2 radicals to steal the run-offs. Government is the problem and it has failed us at every level.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[gator1776]

were the men who signed on to this document right or wrong (see below after my comments?)

This election was stolen. 140 members of the House, 11 members of the Senate,local pub officials in Pa and Ga say it, Americas Mayor says it. We have seen videos of it with our own eyes. There are 1000s of affidavits claiming to witness it. Statistical anomalies make it more likely for Biden to have won the lottery than the election. No court will hear actual evidence and have dismissed cases claiming some procedural reason.

Peter King former R- NY was on Newsmax making a case for the legal process. Ga didn't fix its election problems and allowed 2 radicals to steal the run-offs. Government is the problem and it has failed us at every level.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

@dingyibvs

 

[LizardGrad89]

were the men who signed on to this document right or wrong (see below after my comments?)

This election was stolen. 140 members of the House, 11 members of the Senate,local pub officials in Pa and Ga say it, Americas Mayor says it. We have seen videos of it with our own eyes. There are 1000s of affidavits claiming to witness it. Statistical anomalies make it more likely for Biden to have won the lottery than the election. No court will hear actual evidence and have dismissed cases claiming some procedural reason.

Peter King former R- NY was on Newsmax making a case for the legal process. Ga didn't fix its election problems and allowed 2 radicals to steal the run-offs. Government is the problem and it has failed us at every level.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

When you post that there are statistical anomalies, that's where you prove you aren't thinking but only parroting what you have heard or read. Do I need to explain AGAIN why the statistics argument is garbage? Just say the word and I will enlighten you.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

When you post that there are statistical anomalies, that's where you prove you aren't thinking but only parroting what you have heard or read. Do I need to explain AGAIN why the statistics argument is garbage? Just say the word and I will enlighten you.

Benford's law. Look it up, sheep. Damn you boys are dumbasses LOL

 

[LizardGrad89]

Benford's law. Look it up, sheep. Damn you boys are dumbasses LOL

Percentage of counted first digit integers. I'm a CPA, you moron. I know Benford's law far better than you. It's a common audit test. And it DOESN'T PROVE FRAUD. It's at most a red flag. And it doesn't apply here.

But why listen to me? Here's a paper written on the subject.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

When you post that there are statistical anomalies, that's where you prove you aren't thinking but only parroting what you have heard or read. Do I need to explain AGAIN why the statistics argument is garbage? Just say the word and I will enlighten you.

I missed it. Let me hear why you think it's garbage. Thanks.

 

[LizardGrad89]

I missed it. Let me hear why you think it's garbage. Thanks.

You guys kill me.

The original statistical claim was that there was no way the mail in ballots could have been in the percentages they were, because it was so far off from the day-of election results. But first, the mail in ballots were a separate statistical population from the day of election population, you can't just combine them without changing the population characteristics. Second, if you do combine them, you can't pull out the mail in ballots as a sample, because it's non-random. Statistics only works with random samples. You pull a non-random sample, all you have is garbage.

This Benford's test doesn't work, because it's not the same kind of statistics. Benford's test doesn't prove or disprove anything, it's only a red flag test. And beyond that, the test really isn't applicable. Benford's is a test used for huge data sets (like all the sales made by a company for a year, or a month if it's really big like Apple), not for such a very few as the districts in a county. But I linked to the explanation above, if you want a detailed understanding, read that.

 

[NavigatorII]

You guys kill me.

The original statistical claim was that there was no way the mail in ballots could have been in the percentages they were, because it was so far off from the day-of election results. But first, the mail in ballots were a separate statistical population from the day of election population, you can't just combine them without changing the population characteristics. Second, if you do combine them, you can't pull out the mail in ballots as a sample, because it's non-random. Statistics only works with random samples. You pull a non-random sample, all you have is garbage.

This Benford's test doesn't work, because it's not the same kind of statistics. Benford's test doesn't prove or disprove anything, it's only a red flag test. And beyond that, the test really isn't applicable. Benford's is a test used for huge data sets (like all the sales made by a company for a year, or a month if it's really big like Apple), not for such a very few as the districts in a county. But I linked to the explanation above, if you want a detailed understanding, read that.

Being a CPA doesn't give you shit in forensic accounting cred. When your original sample is corrupt, you have to widen your scope. Collusion.......now you Dims should be familiar with this term. With regard to this election in certain states, the sample size just increased to 90% of the entire population of the data. You just ran an election that parallels the Enron scandal. They ACTUALLY passed laws to prevent this kind of shit, it's commonly known as SOXX. 😂

If the SEC had run an audit on this election, the entire DNP would be in Federal Court testifyng in front of a grand jury.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Percentage of counted first digit integers. I'm a CPA, you moron.

That makes you having no idea what you are talking about here even more delicious.

Being a CPA doesn't give you shit in forensic accounting cred.

This is awesome.

 

[NavigatorII]

That makes you having no idea what you are talking about here even more delicious.

I'm a CPA, and he's an idiot when it comes to the fraud that was perpetrated in November. Sadly, GA left their same election law loopholes open for the runoff, it was like Groundhog Day again last night.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

When you post that there are statistical anomalies, that's where you prove you aren't thinking but only parroting what you have heard or read.

This Benford's test doesn't work, because it's not the same kind of statistics.

Benford's Law is used to flag the very statistical anomalies that you claim don't exist.

I knew you'd never heard of it LMAO!

 

[bradleygator]

were the men who signed on to this document right or wrong (see below after my comments?)

This election was stolen. 140 members of the House, 11 members of the Senate,local pub officials in Pa and Ga say it, Americas Mayor says it. We have seen videos of it with our own eyes. There are 1000s of affidavits claiming to witness it. Statistical anomalies make it more likely for Biden to have won the lottery than the election. No court will hear actual evidence and have dismissed cases claiming some procedural reason.

Peter King former R- NY was on Newsmax making a case for the legal process. Ga didn't fix its election problems and allowed 2 radicals to steal the run-offs. Government is the problem and it has failed us at every level.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I defer to the courts to weigh evidence. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would too. I’m a lawyer. I can tell you it is unthinkable to lose and soundly and completely in the courts as the Trump team has. Often, it’s been conservative judges and Trump appointees dismissing the cases. There is no evidence of fraud. The allegations are baseless. Affidavits are barely given weight in arbitration because they are so prone to fraud and generally based on uninformed opinion. The entire challenge has been an exercise in Trump before country. Good riddance to Trump and good riddance to his followers frankly.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Being a CPA doesn't give you shit in forensic accounting cred. When your original sample is corrupt, you have to widen your scope. Collusion.......now you Dims should be familiar with this term. With regard to this election in certain states, the sample size just increased to 90% of the entire population of the data. You just ran an election that parallels the Enron scandal. They ACTUALLY passed laws to prevent this kind of shit, it's commonly known as SOXX. 😂

If the SEC had run an audit on this election, the entire DNP would be in Federal Court testifyng in front of a grand jury.

Do you mean Sarbanes-Oxley? That's known as SOX. I bet I know a TEENY bit more about it than you do.

And you are confused about the sample size issue. They weren't testing voters. They were testing vote counts per districts in a county. For example, Cook County (Chicago) has about 40 townships. I got that off the map. Not sure how they report voting totals, whether it's by township or some other division. But Benford's law is designed for data files thousands or even tens of thousands in size.

As for the 90% thing, well, that's just crap. Arizona, for example, had about 3.3 million votes. The population is 7.2 million. Pennsylvania had 6.8 million vote out of a population of 12.8 million. If you think either is 90%, well, I bet the local CC has a remedial math class you can take.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Being a CPA doesn't give you shit in forensic accounting cred. When your original sample is corrupt, you have to widen your scope. Collusion.......now you Dims should be familiar with this term. With regard to this election in certain states, the sample size just increased to 90% of the entire population of the data. You just ran an election that parallels the Enron scandal. They ACTUALLY passed laws to prevent this kind of shit, it's commonly known as SOXX. 😂

If the SEC had run an audit on this election, the entire DNP would be in Federal Court testifyng in front of a grand jury.

You kill me. Now you are telling me that the accountants don't know forensic accounting? Well, then who does? Bus Drivers?

Let me clue you in on a little something. It's fair you didn't know it, I've never told this to you. But my Masters in Accounting is with a specialization in fraud. I know all about Benford's law, I know all about SOX, I am an expert in the things you are telling me you know more than I do about. It really is hilarious.

 

[NavigatorII]

I defer to the courts to weigh evidence. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would too. I’m a lawyer. I can tell you it is unthinkable to lose and soundly and completely in the courts as the Trump team has. Often, it’s been conservative judges and Trump appointees dismissing the cases. There is no evidence of fraud. The allegations are baseless. Affidavits are barely given weight in arbitration because they are so prone to fraud and generally based on uninformed opinion. The entire challenge has been an exercise in Trump before country. Good riddance to Trump and good riddance to his followers frankly.

That's fine. How about a court that ACTUALLY hears and admits the evidence? Not ONE ****ing court would hear the evidence, not even SIGNED affidavits from eye witnesses. How exactly do you weigh evidence that is never entered into the court records? You must suck as a lawyer if you can't understand this. Oh and it's really a shame Dominion doesn't have the balls to sue Wood and Powell. They will get destroyed through discovery, and they damn well know it. They just hope that the general public has the attention span of the typical low information voter. That strategy will definitely work. They certainly don't want to pay Wood and Powell's attorney fees in either a lost suit, jury trial, or settlement. 😂

 

[NavigatorII]

Do you mean Sarbanes-Oxley? That's known as SOX. I bet I know a TEENY bit more about it than you do.

And you are confused about the sample size issue. They weren't testing voters. They were testing vote counts per districts in a county. For example, Cook County (Chicago) has about 40 townships. I got that off the map. Not sure how they report voting totals, whether it's by township or some other division. But Benford's law is designed for data files thousands or even tens of thousands in size.

As for the 90% thing, well, that's just crap. Arizona, for example, had about 3.3 million votes. The population is 7.2 million. Pennsylvania had 6.8 million vote out of a population of 12.8 million. If you think either is 90%, well, I bet the local CC has a remedial math class you can take.

Yeah I see you don't know shit. We are talking about SOURCE DOCUMENTS. When you find irregularities , you keep expanding your sample size. Testing votes against paper ballots, addresses, voter registration, and signatures. I can guarantee you that would not go well. Forget the software swindle, that's a whole different ball of wax and different kind of audit. Let's just focus on unsolicited mail in votes........received and counted days after election day. Unsupervised and unverified by non partisan observers. That alone is enough to sink that ship. Hell, they did the latter AGAIN last night AFTER a court order that required it. What in the actual phuck??

 

[LizardGrad89]

Yeah I see you don't know shit. We are talking about SOURCE DOCUMENTS. When you find irregularities , you keep expanding your sample size. Testing votes against paper ballots, addresses, voter registration, and signatures. I can guarantee you that would not go well. Forget the software swindle, that's a whole different ball of wax and different kind of audit. Let's just focus on unsolicited mail in votes........received and counted days after election day. Unsupervised and unverified by non partisan observers. That alone is enough to sink that ship. Hell, they did the latter AGAIN last night AFTER a court order that required it. What in the actual phuck??

Just as an FYI, just because you read it on Twitter doesn't make it real.

 

[LizardGrad89]

That's fine. How about a court that ACTUALLY hears and admits the evidence? Not ONE ****ing court would hear the evidence, not even SIGNED affidavits from eye witnesses. How exactly do you weigh evidence that is never entered into the court records? You must suck as a lawyer if you can't understand this. Oh and it's really a shame Dominion doesn't have the balls to sue Wood and Powell. They will get destroyed through discovery, and they damn well know it. They just hope that the general public has the attention span of the typical low information voter. That strategy will definitely work. They certainly don't want to pay Wood and Powell's attorney fees in either a lost suit, jury trial, or settlement. 😂

There was no evidence. That was the problem. Why do you think it took days for each case to be heard, and was then summarily dismissed? Because the judges read the filings, reviewed the additional documentation, realized it was nothing but hot air, and dismissed them. Dismissed them all. Can I fathom a crooked judge? Absolutely. Can I fathom 20? Uh, no.

 

[NavigatorII]

Just as an FYI, just because you read it on Twitter doesn't make it real.

And that's your reply? Jesus christo...........that's weak AF. That was a great "I know you are, but what am I?" 😂

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

That's fine. How about a court that ACTUALLY hears and admits the evidence? Not ONE ****ing court would hear the evidence, not even SIGNED affidavits from eye witnesses. How exactly do you weigh evidence that is never entered into the court records? You must suck as a lawyer if you can't understand this. Oh and it's really a shame Dominion doesn't have the balls to sue Wood and Powell. They will get destroyed through discovery, and they damn well know it. They just hope that the general public has the attention span of the typical low information voter. That strategy will definitely work. They certainly don't want to pay Wood and Powell's attorney fees in either a lost suit, jury trial, or settlement. 😂

THIS... BS misleading response from @bradleygator especially if he's an attorney. Did Trump ever actually lose anything in court? The courts shirked their responsibility!!!

 

[LizardGrad89]

And that's your reply? Jesus christo...........that's weak AF. That was a great "I know you are, but what am I?" 😂

Every argument you posted was from Tweets you or others posted here. So yeah, stop believing Twitter.

 

[NavigatorII]

There was no evidence. That was the problem. Why do you think it took days for each case to be heard, and was then summarily dismissed? Because the judges read the filings, reviewed the additional documentation, realized it was nothing but hot air, and dismissed them. Dismissed them all. Can I fathom a crooked judge? Absolutely. Can I fathom 20? Uh, no.

Let me introduce you to Justice Roberts..........

Hell no we are not hearing this case!! I'll tell you how to vote! This is not 2000, we can't have riots!

Blind sheep. Ba hah hah hah hah.

 

[LizardGrad89]

THIS... BS misleading response from @bradleygator especially if he's an attorney. Did Trump ever actually lose anything in court? The courts shirked their responsibility!!!

Wow.

So on this thread the accountant was told he doesn't understand accounting, and now the lawyer has been told he doesn't understand the law.

Hey, lets get a doctor in here to talk about COVID so you guys can tell him he doesn't understand medicine! Go for the trifecta!

 

[jfegaly]

You kill me. Now you are telling me that the accountants don't know forensic accounting? Well, then who does? Bus Drivers?

Let me clue you in on a little something. It's fair you didn't know it, I've never told this to you. But my Masters in Accounting is with a specialization in fraud. I know all about Benford's law, I know all about SOX, I am an expert in the things you are telling me you know more than I do about. It really is hilarious.

what is it with all the dems on this site feeling like they got to internet flex. The real flexers are the ones that drop knowledge without having to tell everyone their credentials. not trying to say you don’t have the creds, but the first thing I think when someone does this on the interwebs.....they are FOS. Theres one other cat on this site that tried to flex, and he has been caught multiple times now saying things that proved his flexes false. Just saying, if you know stuff, you just know stuff.

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

There was no evidence. That was the problem. Why do you think it took days for each case to be heard, and was then summarily dismissed? Because the judges read the filings, reviewed the additional documentation, realized it was nothing but hot air, and dismissed them. Dismissed them all. Can I fathom a crooked judge? Absolutely. Can I fathom 20? Uh, no.

Serious question LG89, if you heard the evidence, would you change your mind?

 

[NavigatorII]

Every argument you posted was from Tweets you or others posted here. So yeah, stop believing Twitter.

The suits filed are out there, but I'm sure CNN didn't tell you the details, if they mentioned them at all. They are out there, but I am not wasting my time on you. You don't care in any event.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Let me introduce you to Justice Roberts..........

Hell no we are not hearing this case!! I'll tell you how to vote! This is not 2000, we can't have riots!

Blind sheep. Ba hah hah hah hah.

All 9 Justices agreed Texas had no standing. Because they didn't.

Do you realize you are saying that, after the Pennsylvania lawsuit about Pennsylvania was rejected, the same lawsuit about Pennsylvania was filed by Texas? Did you actually think that if Pennsylvania couldn't do it that the justices were going to look at Texas and so "oh crap, we were totally wrong two days ago, lets get going with this!"

 

[BamaFan1137]

All 9 Justices agreed Texas had no standing. Because they didn't.

Do you realize you are saying that, after the Pennsylvania lawsuit about Pennsylvania was rejected, the same lawsuit about Pennsylvania was filed by Texas? Did you actually think that if Pennsylvania couldn't do it that the justices were going to look at Texas and so "oh crap, we were totally wrong two days ago, lets get going with this!"

Can you tell me exactly why the SC didn't hear the Texas case?

 

[LizardGrad89]

Serious question LG89, if you heard the evidence, would you change your mind?

I'm the accountant, not the attorney. Better for you to ask BradleyGator. But while I am not a legal expert, I'm smart enough to know how to rule if there was zero evidence.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Can you tell me exactly why the SC didn't hear the Texas case?

Texas didn't have standing. That is exactly why.

 

[LizardGrad89]

The suits filed are out there, but I'm sure CNN didn't tell you the details, if they mentioned them at all. They are out there, but I am not wasting my time on you. You don't care in any event.

I've read some of them. And none of them are "out there". They have all been dismissed.

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

All 9 Justices agreed Texas had no standing. Because they didn't.

Do you realize you are saying that, after the Pennsylvania lawsuit about Pennsylvania was rejected, the same lawsuit about Pennsylvania was filed by Texas? Did you actually think that if Pennsylvania couldn't do it that the justices were going to look at Texas and so "oh crap, we were totally wrong two days ago, lets get going with this!"

I believe Alito and Thomas indicated they would allow the lawsuit. It wasn't unanimous.

 

[NavigatorII]

You kill me. Now you are telling me that the accountants don't know forensic accounting? Well, then who does? Bus Drivers?

Let me clue you in on a little something. It's fair you didn't know it, I've never told this to you. But my Masters in Accounting is with a specialization in fraud. I know all about Benford's law, I know all about SOX, I am an expert in the things you are telling me you know more than I do about. It really is hilarious.

Then your rants should be even more embarrassing than before. Never once have I mentioned Benford's law. You got all twisted up from someone else's post. LOL! What I'm telling you is that you would have been a great audit bag toter for Arthur Anderson during the Enron debacle. Were you?😂

 

[jfegaly]

Yeah I see you don't know shit. We are talking about SOURCE DOCUMENTS. When you find irregularities , you keep expanding your sample size. Testing votes against paper ballots, addresses, voter registration, and signatures. I can guarantee you that would not go well. Forget the software swindle, that's a whole different ball of wax and different kind of audit. Let's just focus on unsolicited mail in votes........received and counted days after election day. Unsupervised and unverified by non partisan observers. That alone is enough to sink that ship. Hell, they did the latter AGAIN last night AFTER a court order that required it. What in the actual phuck??

been saying that for weeks. Hell with the machines. Just do a forensic audit of the ballots. Were the ballots folded? Were they machine printed? Signatures match etc.....yet, folks would rather have a nation in turmoil. 60 million don’t trust the election. Thats not a crazy conspiracy when you get those types of numbers. This doesn’t end with the trump saga, this will have lasting consequences. Dems and the Media want the country to heal? It starts with a forensic audit to restore public trust

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

I'm the accountant, not the attorney. Better for you to ask BradleyGator. But while I am not a legal expert, I'm smart enough to know how to rule if there was zero evidence.

That's the point man... the courts didn't hear the evidence. They chose not to for various standing reasons.

 

[jfegaly]

I believe Alito and Thomas indicated they would allow the lawsuit. It wasn't unanimous.

you are correct. @LizardGrad89 is wrong here, again

 

[NavigatorII]

been saying that for weeks. Hell with the machines. Just do a forensic audit of the ballots. Were the ballots folded? Were they machine printed? Signatures match etc.....yet, folks would rather have a nation in turmoil. 60 million don’t trust the election. Thats not a crazy conspiracy when you get those types of numbers. This doesn’t dnd with the trump saga, this will have lasting consequences. Dems and the Media want the country to heal? It starts with a forensic audit to restore public trust

If I were "a true believer" Dimtard, I would welcome a full audit of the ballots just to put this to rest. But 90% of Dims don't want that. They know in their heart of hearts this shit was stolen.....and they don't care. Hell, the gaffe master himself accidentally admitted the Dims ran the best crooked election ever assembled.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Texas didn't have standing. That is exactly why.

Meaning that they literally couldn't get through the courthouse door (their terms not mine). It didn't lack evidence or a solid argument (we have no idea either way), the court ruled that Texas didn't have a right to ask the questions.

If you recall (and you probably don't, I wouldn't in your shoes), I predicted that the courts would NOT overturn the results. My prediction wasn't based on what the merits of the case might be (had no idea what they would be) but rather that they would prefer to get off the hook and not be responsible...either way tbh.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

 

[LizardGrad89]

I believe Alito and Thomas indicated they would allow the lawsuit. It wasn't unanimous.

Incorrect.

They said that the Supreme Court was the proper forum for a state to file suit against another state, because there had been some discussion over whether it should start in federal court. The ruling very clearly stated that they were not saying anything other than what I just wrote. Don't believe me, read it yourself.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf