Monday, November 30, 2020

Thomas More Society Files Lawsuit In Michigan

The Thomas More Society is seeking to prevent the leftist Secretary of State from certifying the election, claiming that over 500K ballots were cast illegally in the state. PJ Media has the details:

Michigan Illegally Counted or Ignored 500K Ballots, Lawsuit Claims

In the wee hours of Thanksgiving Day, the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed an explosive election lawsuit asking Michigan’s Supreme Court to prevent Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson from certifying the election results until the Michigan legislature can fully investigate fraud claims and to force election officials to hand over all election materials to the legislature for this purpose. The lawsuit claims that officials illegally counted or threw out no fewer than 508,016 ballots, far more than Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote margin over Donald Trump.

“State and local officials brazenly violated election laws in order to advance a partisan political agenda,” Phil Kline, director of The Amistad Project, said in a statement. “The pattern of lawlessness was so pervasive and widespread that it deprived the people of Michigan of a free and fair election, throwing the integrity of the entire process into question.”

Once again the Amistad Project is drawing attention to the role of Mark Zuckerberg. In Michigan, unlike in some other states (WI and GA) it is not alleged that this was illegal per se, however the argument is made that Zuckerberg's money disadvantaged areas of Michigan outside Detroit and specifically advantaged Democrat interests. The argument is that it was "improper" for the municipal government to engage in blatantly partisan politics by accepting the money:

In September, the Detroit City Council approved a $1 million contract for the staffing firm P.I.E. Management to hire up to 2,000 workers to work the polls and staff the ballot-counting machines at the TCF Center. P.I.E. Management reportedly paid temporary workers at least $50 per hour, far above rates in most rural communities. The lawsuit claims that this money came from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg through the group CTCL, “which paid over $400 million nationwide to Democrat-favoring election officials and municipalities.”

The core argument, however, has to do with absentee ballots. Michigan law does not allow the mailing of unsolicited ballots. However:

Citing state records, the lawsuit claims that Benson’s office sent out 355,392 unsolicited ballots. Northon explained that Michigan law requires two signatures for absentee voting: a signature on an application form and a signature on the security sleeve for the ballot. In this election, officials mailed out more than 300,000 ballots that no one had requested.

Not surprisingly, this led to widespread irregularities, which the Amistad Project broke down into seven categories--including what appears to be large numbers of Trump ballots thrown away or otherwise not counted


The petition was filed directly with the Michigan Supreme Court. You can read the complete petition here.


  1. When a partnership no longer is bound by a single value system, it can only dissolve.

    1. Respectfully, no.

      A Union forever. This is not a marriage where we amicably divorce nor a partnership that owns equal shares. One nation, indivisible. That's the deal.

      When one side rejects the governing document of law, you don't give them anuthing. You reject them. You cast them out. We don't divvy up our possessions with criminals because they no longer share our values in private ownership. We arrest, try them, and jail them.

    2. Tshcifty, You've hit on what for me is the crux of this for AG Barr and his DOJ -- you don't preserve the union/insitution/rule of law by ignoring the rule of law, and conversely, the best chance we have to preserve the union is to enforce the rule of law. The sad pantomime we're engaged in now, where everthing is being played out in the courts as if it is a legal game does not even begin to hide the fact that the DOJ has been corrupted by politics and no longer is able to or appears willing to enforce the rule of law.

    3. Mark, it kills me to read what you wrote...though, sadly, it appears to be true. We are not playing by their rules and are suffering the consequences, sigh. Yet, to many of the "elites", it is not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game, but this time it's for keeps I'm afraid. I'm reminded of the pictures of a morgue in Iran after their "revolution" - it shows the bodies of a bunch of executed generals who decided not to resist the return of the Ayatollah and thought somehow their forbearance would allow them to escape the whirlwind, tsk tsk. I wonder if given a second chance, they would have at least decided to go down fighting?

      Folks, I'm afraid this is the Alamo and the enemy has just blown the Deguello...Lord, I just pray I am wrong...

    4. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...”

    5. Tschifty, on "We don't divvy up our possessions with criminals because they no longer share our values.... We arrest, try them, and jail them."
      If Barr gets to do that, OK, but he may have only 7 weeks left.
      If he gets stopped, it's time to face facts, that the current system is beyond saving, so that the only viable option is secession, passive or active.
      If Biden's Feds face huge Resistance in Deplorable's lairs, they'll be less likely to come in w/ all guns blazing, than where their allies hold big sway (as would be so, if you move in to arrest, try them, and jail them, in *their* lairs).

    6. It's over, regardless of a remedy or not. The left has torn the constitutional house down. Well-played Chairman Xi, you divided and now you will conquer.

    7. Assuming he 'loses', Trump must form a new party. Our only chance.

  2. I can’t possibly recommend too highly reading the brief that Mark links to above. Even if you only have time for the first 15 or 20 pages (out of 54 total), it’s worth that time.

    If the associated affidavits for the most part pan out, I just don’t see how any of the non-hack five SC justices could refuse to take up the case (surely it will make its way there in one form or another) & treat it seriously.