Dennis Montgomery/Mike Lindell. Analysis plus minor update.
This is for all the marbles. All of them. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this matter, please see my write-up here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnYrQlIR/dennis-montgomery-mike-lindell-a/
If you haven’t seen my explanation of legally what is going on, see here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JSzFb9/dennis-montgomery-and-mike-linde/
Let’s begin with a minor legal update.
The judge has not issued a ruling on Mr. Lindell’s motion.
In federal court, a typical motion practice proceeds as follows: (1) a memorandum in support of a motion is filed with the court; (2) a memorandum opposing the motion is filed by “the other side”; (3) a reply to the opposition memorandum is filed by the moving party; (4) the court holds a hearing at which there is oral argument; and (5) the court rules on the matter.
Some steps don’t actually have to occur. A motion doesn’t have to be opposed – maybe both parties agree. Also, a reply brief doesn’t have to be filed, although I’ve not seen an instance where one isn’t filed. …When I wrote my previous legal explanation, my understanding was that Mr. Lindell’s attorney had indicated that the judge had issued a ruling lifting the protective order (i.e., the “gag order”). When I had checked the court’s docket on the morning I wrote the summary, I saw that the last item on the docket was the memorandum in opposition (filed by the United States). Given my understanding that a ruling had been made, I assumed that perhaps no reply brief was going to be filed, and that perhaps the judge had ruled from the bench at a hearing concerning the matter – and the ruling hadn’t yet been reduced to writing and entered in the docket.
Late that afternoon, I saw that the docket had been updated to include a court order allowing Mr. Lindell’s attorney an extension of time to file his reply memorandum. That means we are at step #3 in the process I outlined above. The deadline for the reply brief is tomorrow, October 21, 2022. So that is when it will be filed.
One more thing: the judge assigned to the matter is Miranda Du – an Obama appointee. I don’t know anything about her other than that.
OK… Now on to some speculative analysis.
Listen to these breathtaking recordings when you can. They are a little long. Pour yourself a bourbon and listen tonight.
These recordings appear to have been made covertly. I’m not certain on that point. They include Tim Blixseth (a billionaire who made his money in land/timber), Sherriff Joe Arpaio, and a third gentleman that appears to be a prosecuting attorney representing Maricopa County. From one of Montgomery’s declarations, I understand these recordings to have been made in 2013. The topic relates to Montgomery having approached Blixseth with data proving that Clapper and Brennan (among others) were abusing Hammer. There are other topics discussed too – Obama’s birth certificate, for example.
Here's a small portion of what I take from them:
-Hammer was developed by Montgomery, as I stated previously.
-Hammer uses “brute force” (among other methods?) to find the private asymmetric key of a target server. With that key, the subsequent exchange of the symmetric key used to secure the rest of the SSL (HTTPS) session is compromised. Thus the session can be listened in on.
-By virtue of eavesdropping on targeted HTTPS sessions, the CIA observed people entering their usernames and passwords to access various systems – that’s how the database with millions of Americans’ user names and passwords (to access their bank account information) was obtained.
-From 2004 to 2009, Hammer was run out of a server center in Reno, NV. In 2009, the CIA took it in-house to Fort Washington, MD at a “naval research center” that actually housed a custom-built supercomputer center to operationalize Hammer.
-You can hear that John Roberts was targeted, as was the head of the FISA court. This was in 2013 that the recording was made. So even back then, they wanted to abuse the FISA court to conduct illegal surveillance of political opponents, etc.
-My take on John Roberts. He was targeted because the Chief Justice has the sole, unfettered authority to place judges on the FISA court. That’s what Obama and crew wanted: they wanted corrupt judges on the FISA court, and needed Roberts to put them there.
I know this is a bit confusing because I’m sort of combining topics. I’m in a hurry today – my apologies.
I’ll conclude here, for now. This could use other ears and minds. Please assist with ears and bourbon tonight.
EDIT: THIS POST IS - FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EFFORT AND STYLE AND CLARITY - NOT UP TO MY USUAL STANDARDS. MY APOLOGIES, THIS WAS A VERY BUSY DAY FOR ME AND I WANTED TO GET THIS INFO OUT.
I WILL FOLLOW UP AGAIN LATER WITH A POST THAT IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF MY USUAL TONE, VOICE AND INFORMATIONAL DENSITY AND PACE.
The messenger referenced proposed law, that isn't actually law, as if it was law. It's not the law. I cited the actual law, which you've failed to refute. Yes, I do expect better research and citations from you.
Whoopie. Just because they've been doing it, doesn't make it legal. Yes, Oregon has been in violation of federal election law since 2000.
If nobody gives a shit and have allowed it to happen, can you really blame Oregon? If a thief is going to keep skimming money from the register and nobody catches them or stops them, does that make the theft not theft?
You first linked to the US Code I referenced, quoting portions from and EO that isn't law, from an illegitimate Resident, purporting it to be law. I pointed this out. You acknowledged the error. But then followed this up linking to a PROPOSED law, a bill, not passed, that means absolutely nothing as to the question of the actual law. The implication, in following your recent pattern of argument, was that it was law. But again, as I pointed out, it's not law, and its only relevance to the debate, is that it actually only helps to prove that current US Code does not permit universal, no excuse absentee, mass mail-in voting.
I referenced 52 US Code, and I believe also cited 3 U.S. Code § 1 (appointment of Presidential Electors), 2 U.S. Code § 1 (election of Senators), 2 U.S. Code § 7 (election of Representatives) and Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution (authorizing Congress to set times and manner of federal elections). Just in case I didn't, well there you have it. None of this statutory law permits universal no excuse absentee, mass mail-in voting. Burden of proof is on you to show were the law does permit it. The law clearly states that election day is "The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year." Not 10 days leading up to this day. Not 2 days prior, or including 2 days after, but this single day. One day. That's when federal elections are required to take place.
As already stated, only exceptions for mail-in ballots are qualified absentees: overseas voters and military. Moreover, there are quite detailed requirements as to the ballots, how they are to be mailed, proof of ID, signature, witnesses, etc. I won't bother you with block quotes of text. If you want to see it, you can simply check the law, and read it.
Yes, though the Constitution also grants Congress the authority to regulate and modify, as they have, via the aforementioned statutes.
Come now, don't be disingenuous. You know full well that I've on numerous occasions, cited and linked several historians and legal scholars with advanced degrees, PhDs, and college level teaching experience, who've stated the same arguments as I have. You can even go back to Founder Mr. Pinckney who adamantly protested that Congress has 0 authority to adjudicate Electoral disputes. Pretty sure I linked that to you. If I didn't, well there again, now I'm pointing you in that direction. And even if I'm the only one who holds these views, which I'm not, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. You keep falling back on this nonsensical argument. You can do better my friend.
Cool, that's 5 more states conducting illegitimate elections.
Why couldn't he or why didn't he? Maybe because he's woefully ignorant of the law, or knows the law and used this is a set up for a bigger challenge, or maybe he just didn't give a shit? I don't know. I'm no mind reader. Given the inconsistent state of our court system, the same could be said of many of our DAs and judges... ignorance, incompetence, negligence, laziness, malfeasance, blackmailed... Don't know. Don't have an answer for any of the whys... all I can tell you is what the law says, how it should be applied, and that our government isn't doing it.
Perhaps nobody really cares? I care... but I'm a nobody.
Speaking of minds playing tricks... you seem to forget our numerous in-depth conversations over the ECA, or else for some reason, you're choosing to lie. I referenced plenty, cited plenty, quoted at length plenty. Not going to waste anymore time bothering with this little game if you're going to be disingenuous about it.