Thanks to the anon who reported from PA where Dr. Frank was. I posted in that thread, and it got me thinking some more.

I've been wondering how the hell a pillow guy could get a case before the US Supreme Court on election fraud.

I've been wondering how long it will take to work multiple cases through to the highest court.

I've been wondering how they will get around the court's claim of no standing.

But, now I understand.

Lindell will not be "taking his case to the Supreme Court." That is not what will happen. That is not his role.

Remember he was "handed" some information about election fraud, and then blew it all up for the world to see? Remember how that was the start of the big push and eyes on the Arizona audit?

Lindell's role is to gather evidence. He got the lady in Colorado. He got thousands of affidavits. His symposium brought like-minded patriots in the state legislatures -- all 50 states -- together to meet each other and start working on the plan.

Meanwhile ...

The Arizona audit was happening. That thing is not done, yet. Jovan Pulitzer still has yet to reveal his work on the the paper ballots, to prove they were all invalid due to using unauthorized paper.

Meanwhile, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and likely other states are all gathering evidence.

Meanwhile, state attorneys general are preparing to sue the states that committed fraud and violated their own laws in the election in order to cheat (especially Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania).

When the stage is set, certain states will sue other states over election fraud issues, and show evidence that they did not follow their own laws, which harmed the states suing by not providing for a valid election, thus fraudulently changing the results of the Electoral College.

When a state is a party to a lawsuit, the US Supreme Court has ORIGINAL jurisidiction. The case goes straight there. It does not pass Go. It does not collect $200. It does not stop off at lower courts first. Straight to SCOTUS.

This is a constituational mandate:

In all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. -- Article 3, Section 2

Once the states file their case in the US Supreme Court, Mike Lindell and others will file amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs. Remember in Flynn's case when that retarded judge stepped in to tell Sullivan he didn't have to follow the law? That was an amicus curiae.

But Lindell's entry into the case will be a boatload of evidence in support of the case. Lindell does not need to be a party. He is a non-party, but someone who has evidence that is relevant to the case. He could even be a witness. There will likely be other non-parties coming in, as well.

This will be an actual trial. That's what original jurisdiction means.

The evidence will be so overwhelming, that the court will have only two choices:

(1) SCOTUS takes the case, election fraud is proven in court, and the 2020 presidential election is declared fraudulent in certain states, which changes the Electoral College vote, which either puts Trump in or sends it to the House for a vote (where Republicans have the edge -- we will see about the RINO's), or

(2) SCOTUS claims no standing (again), in which case it becomes clear that the courts are not functioning and the federal government is no longer ensuring a "republican form of government" (i.e. rule of law) per the constituational requirement, and then the military has legal basis to declare that the civilian courts are not functioning, so they shut down the insurrection by the Chinese and American traitors that started back in 2020, and prove the election fraud in military court.

Almost like there was a plan or somethin' ...